Business Before Questions

New Writ

Ordered,
That Mr Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Blackpool South in the room of Scott Lloyd Benton, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Simon Hart.)

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we start questions, I should say that Scott, who has been working in my office since I became Speaker, is crossing to another part of the House service—he is not leaving the House—and, on behalf of all Members, I thank him for his work and for ensuring the efficiency of my office.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sentencing: Dangerous Offenders

Simon Jupp: What steps he is taking to increase sentences for dangerous offenders.

Alex Chalk: To govern is to choose. Choices we have made mean that the most dangerous offenders—the acid attackers, the rapists, the knife-point robbers—who are sentenced to seven years or more are required to spend longer in custody. The Sentencing Bill goes further: murders involving sexual or sadistic conduct will lead to a whole-life order unless there are exceptional circumstances, and those convicted of the most serious sexual offences, including rape, will serve 100% of their custodial term in prison.

Simon Jupp: I welcome the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has outlined, as will my East Devon constituents. Rapists deserve the most severe possible custodial sentences. Will he update the House on how sentence lengths have been increased for that utterly vile crime since 2010?

Alex Chalk: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that rape is an appalling crime. In 2010, the average custodial sentence for adult rape was six and a half years, and  prison governors were required to release offenders at the halfway mark. Today, the average sentence is over 40% longer, and offenders serving more than four years must serve two thirds of that sentence behind bars. As I say, we are going further still.

Toby Perkins: For all the positive words from the Secretary of State, the reality in our prisons is that people are being sent out, and the prison estate has not kept pace with the rhetoric that we hear from the Government. The Government are constantly sending criminals on to our streets because they do not have the prison facilities to house them. Is not the reality that we need fewer fine words and more action from the Government to keep our streets safe?

Alex Chalk: That is not a fair characterisation. The capacity in our estate is much greater than when we inherited it—that is point one. Point two is that we have kick-started the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era: £4 billion has been allocated, and we have opened His Majesty’s Prison Fosse Way and HMP Five Wells. HMP Millsike will open next year; we have planning permission for Gartree and Grendon Springhill, and we also have more spaces—rapid deployment cells and so on—coming on at Liverpool, Birmingham and Norwich. We believe that those who commit the most appalling crimes should be locked up for longer. As I say, it was wrong that, in 2010, rapists would be automatically released at the halfway mark. We are the Government who are putting that right.

Robert Buckland: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for building on the work that he and I did together to ensure that the most dangerous and serious offenders spend longer behind bars. The consultation on sentencing in cases of murder concluded a few weeks ago. When can we reasonably expect a response on that sensitive and important issue?

Alex Chalk: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that it is a sensitive issue. As he knows from practice, those who commit the offence of murder outside, using a knife that is brought to the scene, can expect a starting point of 25 years. However, as the Gould and Devey families have made so powerfully clear, where the crime takes place inside the home, there are very difficult sentencing decisions for judges. The consultation has ended, and I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who has spoken to a number of people about it, as indeed have I. We will respond in the coming weeks, but this matter requires careful thought. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for his work on it.

Richard Foord: Barnaby Webber from Taunton was described by his family as an “extraordinary ordinary person”. His killer was found guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder, on the basis of being subject to paranoid schizophrenia. Barnaby’s mother, Emma Webber, says it is “abhorrent” that murder charges were not pursued against her son’s killer. Will the Secretary of State consider re-categorising homicide laws to introduce first-degree and second-degree murder?

Alex Chalk: There is nothing I could say from this Dispatch Box that would put right the horror that the poor families of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Austin suffered in those appalling attacks from Valdo Calocane. The law of homicide has been considered greatly—in fact, as a Back Bencher, I led a debate on the issue of first-degree and second-degree murder. It is of course something that we keep under careful consideration; there is complexity to it, but it is certainly a matter that we will consider.

Cremation: Legislation

Luke Evans: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of legislation on cremation.

Mike Freer: The law on cremation has been updated when needed. For example, the 2008 cremation regulations are currently being amended as part of the ongoing death certification reform. However, the primary legislation on cremation dates back to 1902, and in the light of developments since then, I believe that a more comprehensive review is needed. That is why the Law Commission has agreed to consider the law governing cremation as part of its project on burial, cremation and new funerary methods. That project has commenced, and we await its findings with interest.

Luke Evans: I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Obviously, given what is going on in Hull, there are great concerns. I know that the Minister cannot speak directly about that issue because of the investigation, but there is no formal regulation of funeral directors on these issues. Joseph Barsby, the managing director at G. Seller—a much-loved local funeral director that is at the forefront of funeral facilities in Hinckley—is very concerned, because G. Seller wants to lead, not be tarnished by being sucked into problems in the industry. Will the Minister meet with Joseph to discuss ways in which we can improve the system? Failing that, will there be a way for funeral directors to feed in information and ideas on how to improve the system?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Department has already started work on a call for evidence on where we go with the regulation of the funeral director sector; that will be issued shortly. I am more than happy to ensure that the views of any funeral director are fed in, and, of course, to meet with the firm in his constituency.

Emma Hardy: I thank the Minister for the productive and supportive way that he has engaged with me on the appalling situation with Legacy funeral directors in Hull. I am utterly committed to regulating this industry and never again allowing that appalling, heartbreaking situation to be repeated. I have heard the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), but could he speak a little bit more about timeframes? Does he agree that in the interval before statutory regulation comes in, we should encourage all funeral directors to subject themselves to voluntary regulation by one of the trade bodies, and to do everything they can to reassure the public that not all funeral directors are in a situation like the appalling situation that we have had in my constituency?

Mike Freer: If I may return the compliment, the hon. Lady has handled this appalling incident in her constituency with a great deal of skill. I am committed to working with her and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is leading on some of the initial responses, alongside the local authority. The call for evidence on where we go on regulation will commence in the next few months; the decision, of course, will have to wait for the public consultation. This afternoon, I am meeting the two major trade bodies to discuss how they can assist with voluntary inspections, to ensure that after this terrible incident—what has been happening is quite horrific—which nobody thought could occur, we get this right, so that people have confidence in the vast majority of funeral directors, who are entirely respectable and treat the deceased with the respect and care that we would expect.

Reducing Reoffending

Stephen Crabb: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Alex Chalk: Reducing reoffending is a core mission of this Government. That is why, for example, we rolled out the genuinely transformational policy of 12 weeks’ guaranteed accommodation for offenders on release, and it is why we have invested heavily in employment; there are prison employment leads in every resettlement prison. The plan is working: the reoffending rate has fallen significantly since 2010, from 31% to 25%, and in the two years to March 2023, the proportion of prison leavers in employment six months after release more than doubled.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. He may be aware that the Welsh Affairs Committee has recently heard from businesses such as Timpson and Williams Homes about the work being done to train and recruit prisoners in Wales. While there was a lot of praise for the New Futures Network, which brokers partnerships between employers and prisons, what is being done to expand the number of release on temporary licence schemes? As we have heard, they are really important for improving employability and giving prisoners a better chance of holding down a job when they get out of the gate.

Alex Chalk: I thank my right hon. Friend for the interest he is showing in this issue. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the New Futures Network, which does exceptional work in custody. Of course, it is very often able to liaise with employment advisory boards—local business people in the area—to ensure that prisoners are trained in the skills that they need for jobs in that area. When I went to HMP Berwyn, which is of course in Wales, one of the things that I was so impressed by is that its employment hub has a video suite, so that prisoners can be interviewed by employers on the outside. On my right hon. Friend’s point about ROTL, that is something that prison governors keep under review. Certainly in the right cases, where ROTL is safe for the public, it can be a useful tool to ensure that prisoners are rehabilitated and get into work, so that they can be law-abiding citizens in the future.

Derek Twigg: The Secretary of State will know that one of the ways to reduce reoffending is to break the cycle of drug misuse. The problem of course is that in too many prisons there is a high incidence of drugs getting in, so what is he doing to reduce the amount of drugs in our prisons?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Member is right: it is of course really important that we tackle drugs coming into prisons. We have rolled out £100 million in prison gate security, to ensure that there is airport-style security. There are scanners, including body scanners with very high resolution, so that people coming into jails can be scanned for illicit contraband that may be being transported internally; that is important. We are also rolling out additional technology that can scan mail for psychoactive substances impregnated into the paper. That is just one of a suite of measures that we are taking—plus there are the drug abstinence wings.
May I take this opportunity to say that I misspoke earlier? Ian Coates was the third victim of the Nottingham attacks.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Robert Neill KC.

Bob Neill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s comments about the progress made on tackling reoffending, but he will be aware that it remains stubbornly high. We are in an unfortunate position: we imprison more people than most of our neighbours in Europe, but still have higher rates of reoffending. Does that not posit the fact that we need to make more intelligent use of prison, and of alternatives to custody, as parts of a joined-up system? Would he agree that the Sentencing Bill is particularly valuable in this regard, and can we hope for its swift return to the House?

Alex Chalk: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his excellent point. He says something with which I passionately agree: strip out the emotion and follow the evidence. The evidence shows that there are tools available to this generation of politicians that were not necessarily available 10 or 15 years ago. I am talking not just about GPS tags, which we have doubled, but alcohol tags, with which there is a 97% compliance rate. The reoffending rate among those who live with the sword of Damocles hanging over them can be much lower than for those who spend a short time in custody.

Lindsay Hoyle: As it was his birthday yesterday, I call Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are never going to let me forget about my birthday.
I very much thank the Secretary of State for his answers, and for his very clear commitment to physical and skills training. The other important issue is education. If we keep people’s minds and bodies active, they will not wish to offend when they leave prison, so what is being done to help, educationally? Will the Secretary of State share the ideas he clearly has with the equivalent Minister in Northern Ireland?

Alex Chalk: Absolutely. Importantly, we are rolling out a prison education service, with a considerable sum of money—about £150 million a year, which is significant. However, it is critical to have tie-up between the local employment advisory boards, liaising with the governor, and the New Futures Network to ensure that the education provided is tailored to the jobs on the outside. People are being assisted with literacy, for example, so that they can do jobs in hospitality, kitchens or horticulture. Education works when it is tailored to job opportunities on the outside. That is how we get prisoners motivated and engaged—and yes, I am happy to engage in the way that the hon. Member proposes.

Lasting Power of Attorney Agreements

Fabian Hamilton: What steps he is taking to prevent the potential abuse of lasting power of attorney agreements.

Mike Freer: When an LPA application is submitted, there is a statutory four-week waiting period before the LPA can be registered, during which objections can be lodged. As for registered LPAs, any concerns about an attorney abusing one can be reported to the Office of the Public Guardian, which will investigate. As part of the modernisation of LPAs following the passage of the Powers of Attorney Act 2023, new identity verification processes will be introduced to further strengthen the system.

Fabian Hamilton: More than 6 million people in Britain have lasting power of attorney agreements. I have been inundated recently with so many harrowing stories from across the country of abusers targeting elderly people and stealing their estate from under their nose. Will the Minister ensure that a proper medical assessment is carried out before an LPA is activated, and that the digitisation of LPAs does not lead to families losing their loved one’s estate to unscrupulous abusers?

Mike Freer: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am more than happy to take that away and write to him about the steps we take to ensure that that level of check is in place. I reassure the House that people can check the “use a lasting power of attorney” service on gov.uk to see where LPAs have been issued, and whether one has been issued without their knowledge.

Secure Youth Estate: Violence

Stephen Doughty: What steps he is taking to reduce violence in the secure youth estate.

Edward Argar: The number of children in custody has fallen by nearly 70% in the last decade, but that means that those in custody are more complex; 71% of them are detained for violent offences. Although the rate of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults declined by 7% between July and September 2023, compared with the same period in 2022, the rate of assaults on staff increased. That is why all sites have a safety strategy reflecting local drivers of violence. That includes tackling the use of weapons,  and training staff in conflict resolution. Much has been done, but there continues to be more to do, and we remain focused on doing it.

Stephen Doughty: Those strategies are clearly not working. There were 320 assaults on staff between July and September 2023, of which 24 were serious. That is a 9% increase, year on year, in assaults in the children and young people’s estate. When will the Minister put in place a proper plan to cut violence in the youth estate and keep staff safe?

Edward Argar: The plan we have put in place is working, but there is more to do. The hon. Gentleman highlighted statistics that, as he will accept, I acknowledged from the Dispatch Box. We believe that our approach to tackling violence and to conflict resolution in our youth estate is right, and we will continue to press forward with it to reduce rates of assault on our hard-working and dedicated prison officers and staff.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Janet Daby: The Government have decided to change the use of Cookham Wood youth offender institution to an adult prison. That follows a lack of progress in improving young people’s access to education, and increased violence on the prison estate. The behaviour management method of keeping young people in their cells has failed. This decision puts a spotlight on the wider crisis in adult prisons. When the young people are transferred, how will the Minister ensure that the practice of keeping them in their cells, and the cycle of violence, will end?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her question about Cookham Wood. As she will be aware, a number of specific local factors at work in Cookham Wood led to the urgent notification, and the challenges in addressing that. As for those young people and their transfer to other institutions, a number of them will be released before Cookham Wood closes. Those still in custody will be assessed individually, and they and their families will be engaged with to ensure that they are placed in institutions that are best suited to their needs, and that give them the greatest opportunity to progress and make positive life choices for when they are released.

Janet Daby: It is a shame that the Minister did not address the violence specifically. Violence is a challenge across the youth estate, not just at Cookham Wood. Recently, a girl with challenging behaviours and complex needs at Wetherby YOI was restrained and then stripped—not once, but twice—by male officers. In the context of rising violence and extreme self-harm, does the Minister believe that is acceptable, and what alternative provision does he have in mind other than the Keppel unit in Wetherby YOI?

Edward Argar: I did address the point about violence on the estate in response to the original question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). The hon. Lady asked specifically about a case highlighted by the chief inspector of prisons in his recent report.What happened there was clearly against policy. It was clearly wrong and concerning, but I do  have to correct her: the individual involved was at no point strip-searched. That was inaccurate reporting. At all times, the modesty of the individual was protected with a blanket, so I am afraid that what was said in reporting that it was a strip search is not correct. Clothes were removed under a blanket in order to protect life where there was imminent risk to it. Those officers made a difficult decision in the circumstances to protect life. It is right that we look into the specifics of what happened, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have done. I think we just need to be a little cautious at this point about accepting everything that was reported as fact.

Violence against Prison Officers

Chris Elmore: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of violence against prison officers.

Edward Argar: All assaults on prison staff are utterly unacceptable. That is why we have taken steps to protect our staff. I put on record something that I suspect those on both sides of the House share, which is our gratitude to all those who work in our prisons. To protect staff, we have rolled out PAVA—pelargonic acid vanillylamide—spray in adult male prisons, and body-worn video cameras. The maximum penalty for those who assault prison officers has been doubled, and we have completed our £100 million security investment programme to clamp down on the illicit items that fuel prison violence. The rate of assaults on staff in the 12 months to September 2023 was 10% lower than in the 12 months to September 2019—before the pandemic—but it is still far too high.

Chris Elmore: I know the Minister cares about this issue and wants to see solutions for how we protect prison officers across the prison estate, but according to the Prison Officers Association and the Community union, serious offences against prison officers are up 10% on last year. Some 750 of those assaults are deemed to be serious, and 23 attacks are being recorded every day on the prison estate across England and Wales. There are huge concerns about overcrowding. The level of prison officers is 10% lower than in 2010. It is positive to hear the Secretary of State talking about opening new prisons, but if there are no prison officers to work there, how will we resolve these issues? More worryingly, prison officers are taking to the media to say that they are frightened for their lives to work on the prison estate. I do not think the plan is working. I believe the Minister wants to fix it, but what is the next plan to resolve things and ensure that prison officers remain safe on our prison estate?

Edward Argar: No one, in any walk of life, should be in fear of assault at work, and that obviously includes dedicated prison officers. I have already highlighted the steps we are taking to tackle some of the root causes of that violence. We have the £100 million security measures to tackle illicit drugs and mobile phones—the sorts of things that fuel the violence—and the ability to deploy PAVA spray. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the importance in this context of the number of prison officers. That is why I am pleased that in the latest statistics published at the end of last year, numbers are up by 1,500, and retention rates are improving, too.

Victims of Domestic Violence: Court Proceedings

Duncan Baker: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that victims of domestic violence are protected throughout court proceedings.

Laura Farris: The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was transformative with the protections it gave to domestic abuse victims through the justice system. To give just a few examples, up-front legal aid is available to all domestic abuse victims seeking a protective order, without having to establish evidence of abuse. Our upcoming legal aid means test review will significantly increase eligibility and exclude disputed assets, such as the marital home, from consideration. Perpetrators are prohibited from cross-examining their victims, and victims are entitled to the support of an independent domestic violence adviser throughout the process.

Duncan Baker: My office has recently assisted with several cases regarding the use of court proceedings involving victims of domestic abuse. In many cases, family issues are going straight to trial without any mediation, which causes far more trauma for all parties concerned. Can the Minister assure me that we will always place the victim at the forefront of court proceedings in these circumstances?

Laura Farris: It is specifically to address that issue that we commissioned our harms panel, which conducted excellent work, as a result of which the Ministry of Justice has conducted a pilot of pathfinder courts in Dorset and north Wales focused on preventing exactly this issue. Those courts have focused on creating a less adversarial system where domestic abuse allegations are investigated and resolved at an early stage without being intensified through the court. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that so successful has the pilot been that it will now be rolled out on a national basis, starting next month with courts in south-east Wales and in Birmingham.

Sarah Champion: In 2023, 67,938 rapes were recorded by the police, but there were just 2,008 rape convictions. It is well documented that there is not enough support for rape victims through the court process. The use of counselling notes has a chilling effect, and the long waits for their case to go to trial have an intense impact on survivors, often causing them to withdraw. What will the Minister do to ensure that victims and survivors are supported throughout the court process?

Laura Farris: It is not in dispute that rape is the most serious offence a person can experience that is not homicide. It is as a result of the implementation of the end-to-end rape review that we started Operation Soteria through the police forces. That has not just improved rape prosecutions; some forces are referring quadruple the volume of cases to the Crown Prosecution Service that they were once before, and overall prosecutions have more than doubled. We have close to 1,000 independent sexual violence advisers working in the system, holding a victim’s hand from the minute they go to the police to the conclusion of the process. I met some in Hatfield last month, who told me that victims had told them  they had only stayed in the process because of that support. It is night and day from where it was in 2010. We review the outcome of the rape review every quarter, and the curve is going upwards, so of course it is a crucial issue, but one on which significant improvement is being made on every single matrix.

Dean Russell: Domestic abuse has no place in modern society or any society. What work is happening to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are supported throughout the entire process? We have a fantastic organisation in Watford called Watford Women’s Centre, which helps many abuse victims, but what are the Government doing to ensure that victims are supported throughout and that the perpetrators are taken to court and justice is served?

Laura Farris: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. I give him a similar answer to the one I gave the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). One thing that has been transformative in victim support is the provision of not just independent sexual violence advisers, but independent domestic abuse advisers. Again, there are nearly 1,000 advisers in the system helping victims every step of the way. One thing that I am most excited about in this challenging area of the law is the pilot launching next month for domestic abuse protection orders, which will give police or victims the ability to go to the magistrates court or the family court to seek a blend of measures, whether that is a non-molestation order, an occupation order or a stalking protection order, and create positive obligations on the perpetrator, whether that is on alcohol abuse or through the perpetrator programme. There is a comprehensive package of support for domestic abuse victims.

Sarah Olney: In Scotland, victims of rape and serious sexual assault are now able to access free court transcripts. The project will give victims free access to transcripts that previously would have cost thousands of pounds. However, the UK Government refuse to match the scheme and are only committing to a one-year pilot scheme, in which free copies of sentencing remarks will be made available to victims of serious crime. That is not good enough. It fails victims like my constituent, Juliana Terlizzi, who was charged over £7,000 to read the transcript of her rapist’s trial. Ahead of Report stage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the other place next month, will the Justice Secretary meet Juliana and me to discuss matching the Scottish scheme, which will help get victims the justice they deserve?

Laura Farris: I reassure the hon. Lady that the Courts Minister has said that he will meet her to discuss the matter. She will know that the cost of transcription for a full trial can be as high as £20,000, but the power and impact of any trial, where there has been a conviction, is in the judge’s sentencing remarks at the end, in seeing everything, and society’s opprobrium is expressed through the voice of the judge. That is why we are conducting a pilot for free sentencing remarks in all those cases.

Children in Care: Family Courts

Tonia Antoniazzi: What assessment he has made of the impact of delays in the family courts on children who have been taken into care.

Mike Freer: Delays in decision making during care proceedings can have a significant impact on children, and we recognise that there is more to do to address that challenge. That is why last year the Government published their response to the independent review of children’s social care, setting out a programme of action to achieve better outcomes. The Department for Education is investing an extra £10 million on new initiatives to address the longest delays and meet the statutory requirement to resolve proceedings within 26 weeks.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Data from Cafcass shows that children who have been removed from their parents by the state have to wait an average of 46 weeks to get a final decision on where they will live. That is heartbreaking. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of extended family proceedings on the mental health of the children involved and their ability to access support and child and adolescent mental health services?

Mike Freer: The hon. Lady raises a very serious point. The impact on the child and the wider family is appreciated. We have invested in capacity, with more money for Cafcass, judges and recorders, and more sitting days to ensure that we increase capacity so that hearings can be heard effectively. We are also focusing on the public law outline, which sets a maximum number of hearings and the time limits, to ensure that proceedings are heard on time. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise any specific cases, I will be happy to meet her to get to the bottom of any specific problems.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Cunningham: Despite the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), the Government are still a long way from solving the crisis in the family courts. We have heard of the 46-week average, but in 13 of the 42 designated family judge areas in England and Wales, the wait is double the statutory target of 26 weeks. Then, there are the 80,000 private family law cases that can take 45 weeks to be resolved, and the number of new cases is increasing faster than disposals. Do the Government have any concern or compassion for some of the most vulnerable children in the country who are being let down? I invite the Minister to try again and assure the House that the crisis will not get even worse.

Mike Freer: If there is a lever that I have not pulled, I invite the shadow Minister to let me know what it is, and I will address it. This Government are spending more money on attracting more judges and recorders, maximising sitting days and investing in the public law outline and, on the flip side of public family law, on private family law as well as mediation. We are investing an extra £55 million, as announced in the Budget, to address productivity and the backlogs. Every single lever that will increase capacity and productivity is being pulled, but I am more than happy for the hon. Member to share any insight with me, and I am sure that we can work on a better solution.

Crown Court Backlog

Stephanie Peacock: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the backlog in the Crown court.

Debbie Abrahams: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the backlog in the Crown court.

Alex Chalk: More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved in the magistrates court, which includes burglaries, thefts, assaults, criminal damage and drugs offences. Thanks to magistrates’ exceptional efforts, the caseload has come down significantly from its post-pandemic peak, and cases are being heard promptly. To help bring down the caseload in the Crown court, the Government have invested heavily to allow courts to operate at full throttle. We have recruited around 1,000 judges and tribunal members across all jurisdictions this financial year. We have kept open 20 nightingale courtrooms to boost capacity, and we are on track to increase spending on criminal legal aid by more than £140 million a year.

Stephanie Peacock: In Yorkshire, Sheffield Crown court has been forced to shut twice in the last two years due to flooding. That is in addition to the already record-breaking court backlog across the UK of 67,000 cases. What measures have the Government put in place to deal with unplanned court closures, to ensure that people still have access to justice?

Alex Chalk: One of the first things I did when I took on this role was to extract from the Treasury an additional £80 million to go into our court maintenance fund. That is important because it allows us to plan not just reactively this year, but proactively over time. That will create more efficiencies and get us more for our money, and will mean that great courts such as those in Sheffield can continue to do the business.

Debbie Abrahams: How does the backlog in criminal court cases vary by region? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with local judicial teams on prioritising and communicating those backlogs?

Alex Chalk: The senior presiding judge will keep a close eye on regional discrepancies. In certain cases, there is the power to transfer them from one court to another, but that will depend on the suitability for defendants, and witnesses and victims who need to attend hearings. It is important that we send the message from this Chamber that more than 90% of all criminal trials—the cases that people want resolved such as criminal damage, drugs matters and common assault—are dealt with in magistrates courts, and magistrates up and down our country are doing an excellent job at getting through those cases.

Andy Carter: I absolutely endorse the Lord Chancellor’s comments on magistrates working incredibly hard to clear backlogs in courts. He will have seen recent journalistic reporting relating to single justice procedure, which is an important element of magistrates’ work. The principle behind the single justice procedure is good, and I have sat on cases in SJP courts, but there are some concerns, in particular around vulnerable individuals who may have mitigation that is not necessarily being addressed. Does he agree that perhaps he could remind Members that magistrates can already use their discretion to refer cases back to open court, where prosecutors can review cases to ensure  that individuals who are vulnerable are not served with un-justice?

Alex Chalk: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for the exceptional work they do to ensure that justice is done. On the single justice procedure, fairness is non-negotiable, so it is critical that every person who comes before the courts, whether via the SJP or an open court, gets that fairness. There is an issue about transparency. Some important points on that have been raised, and echoed by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). It is something that we ought to consider recalibrating. Everyone accepts that the SJP works well and is a useful addition. We just need to see whether it ought to be refined in the interests of promoting transparency.

End of Custody Supervised Licence

Chris Evans: How many prisoners have been released early under the end of custody supervised licence scheme since October 2023.

Edward Argar: End of custody supervised licence began in October 2023. Analysis of and statistics on its use will be based on one year’s worth of data and published on an annualised basis in line with other statistics, such as deaths of offenders in the community. We consider that to be the appropriate approach.

Chris Evans: Earlier this month, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is in his place, said that prisons are at “bursting point”, while the Prison Governors’ Association said that without the extension of the ECSL scheme, our criminal justice system
“may have ground to a halt”.
Meanwhile, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner labelled the plans as
“dangerous to domestic abuse victims”.
Is the Minister satisfied that the scheme manages the prison population while keeping the victims of crime safe? If so, when will he release data about which prisoners have been released?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of points there. The ECSL is a response to, yes, acute capacity challenges, but it is a targeted scheme operating in prisons as required and where necessary. I gently say to him that a similar scheme ran from 2007 to 2010. In that case, it bore significant differences to what is happening now. ECSL, as operating now, contains a range of important safeguards that were simply not in place between 2007 and 2010. The 2007-10 scheme released some people straight into the community without any supervision and led to the early release of some prisoners convicted of terror offences. This scheme is totally different. It plays a role in managing the prison capacity challenges, but it has those important safeguards in place to protect victims and society.

Andrea Jenkyns: Our prisons are full, so much so that the Government are sanctioning the early release of inmates to make space. At what point will we prioritise the deportation of foreign criminals who are taking up one in nine of  our prison cells, so that we can get back to zero-tolerance policing and ensure that no crime is too small to go unpunished?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she is quite right to highlight that a key element of tackling the prison capacity crisis is sending back, through deportation, foreign national offenders. She will be reassured that 18,000 have been deported in the past four years and we continue to drive that target ever higher.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Kevin Brennan: It is telling that the Minister is refusing to come clean with the public on how many prisoners are being released early under the scheme. As we know, the public are overwhelmingly in favour of an early release scheme if it were applied to his colleagues in a general election. [Laughter.] Does he have any intention, before that happy day, of releasing the truth about how many prisoners are being let out early?

Edward Argar: It is always a pleasure to face the gentle barbs of the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time. As I have made very clear on a previous occasion in the House, and indeed just a few moments ago, we consider that an annualised publication of these statistics is the most appropriate approach, in line with the publication of similar statistics such as those relating to deaths of offenders in the community.

Legal Aid: Immigration Cases

Chris Law: What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of legal aid for immigration cases.

Mike Freer: The Legal Aid Agency monitors the provision of immigration legal aid and takes whatever actions are operationally available to it to ensure a supply of providers.

Chris Law: I was hoping for an answer but did not get one, so let me try this. While we all desperately want to see the Tories’ asylum backlog cleared, this effort must be well funded and must ensure access to justice. What we have instead is an under-resourced bureaucracy and a push to make rushed asylum decisions, combined with severe difficulty in accessing immigration legal aid, and as a result thousands of asylum seekers have effectively been denied the right to legal representation. Why do the UK Government stand alone in not recognising the enormous crisis in immigration legal aid?

Mike Freer: In fact, the Government spent £44 million on immigration legal aid in 2022-23. We have increased the hourly rate for those undertaking this kind of work, and we are looking at remote access and payment for travelling. All those steps we have taken to raise the level of funding in this important area. I have to say, however, that I think it takes a particular bit of brass neck for the SNP to lecture us on the funding of legal aid. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Scottishlegal.com, which has commented on how the SNP has decimated legal aid in Scotland.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Chris Stephens: Perhaps the Minister can answer this question. The Bar Council has repeatedly highlighted the fact that asylum claimants who have otherwise meritorious cases have often gone through multiple appeals due to very poor or no legal representation. That jacks up the costs for the courts, the Home Office and local authorities, all the while trapping vulnerable people in an agonising limbo. If the Government will not address the crisis in immigration legal aid because it is the right thing to do, will they at least do so because it is the financially sound thing to do?

Mike Freer: As I have said, we are already increasing the fees for those who take on legal aid work in connection with the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That is a 15% increase on the increase that we have already seen. On top of that, we are rolling out remote access to the duty advice scheme and introducing payment for travel. Those are major steps towards ensuring the availability of legal aid. I therefore do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s description of the position. If he wants to start swapping comments from the Bar Council, I can quote the Scottish Bar Council’s views on the SNP’s record.

HMPPS Reoffending Programmes

John Penrose: What recent assessment his Department has made of the impact of outcomes data from the Justice Data Lab on the recommissioning of HM Prison and Probation Service reoffending programmes in the last 12 months.

Gareth Bacon: Reducing reoffending is a core mission of this Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said in an earlier answer, we act on the basis not of emotion but of evidence, deploying a series of carefully researched interventions from the prison employment leads to the provision of 12 weeks of accommodation post release. That is why the reoffending rate has decreased from 31% to 25% since 2010. The Justice Data Lab makes an important contribution by providing HMPPS and external organisations with a robust assessment of whether their interventions work, and we will continue to consider their work carefully.

John Penrose: I welcome the adherence to an evidence-based approach to working out whether or not these various programmes work effectively, but may I urge Ministers to go even further by ensuring that every programme we currently commission is reassessed on the basis of outcomes, and then not recommissioned unless those outcomes measure up?

Gareth Bacon: I can confirm that the Government will continue to base our investment decisions to reduce reoffending on the best available evidence at the time. We are continuously improving our evidence base, for instance through the cross-governmental Better Outcomes through Linked Data programme.

Topical Questions

Tan Dhesi: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alex Chalk: Since the last session of Justice questions I have visited HMP Liverpool, a prison that received a poor inspection report some years ago, and I saw how it had been transformed. Prisoners were engaged in constructive activity in the cycle repair workshop and elsewhere, cells had been refurbished, and there was a clear sense of pride among prison officers, who were determined to deliver safety, decency and rehabilitation. Prisons as well as prisoners, it seems, can be redeemed. I have also visited Liverpool Crown court to see our “intensive supervision courts” in action, tackling the root causes of offending with treatment for addictions. In Coventry I saw rapid deployment teams of offenders who had been sentenced to carrying out unpaid work clearing up local neighbourhoods, visibly atoning for their crimes, and doing so within 48 hours of the project being nominated by the public.
I was pleased to support the important Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), which is intended to tackle abusive and chilling lawsuits. We have also brought forward legislation on litigation funding agreements to ensure that third parties can continue to fund court proceedings on behalf of individuals or small businesses. That support enabled the sub-postmasters to make their successful civil claim. Our legislation will bolster access to justice, boost our legal sector, and ensure that in our courts David can still take on Goliath.

Tan Dhesi: The Government have achieved only 5,900 of the promised 20,000 new prison places, resulting in them having to release prisoners up to 60 days early to alleviate overcrowding, thereby directly impacting on public safety. How does the Secretary of State reconcile this with the Conservative promise of being tough on crime, especially when his end-of-custody supervised licensing scheme expansion significantly deviates from judicial sentencing?

Alex Chalk: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. When I was in practice, I had to listen to the then Labour Home Secretary say that he was going to cancel the three Titan prisons that he had boasted he would open. Not one was built. We have opened Five Wells and Fosse Way, and Millsike is under construction. We have more cells coming online in Birmingham, Liverpool and Norwich. We have rapid deployment cells, and we have new houseblocks in Guys Marsh, Rye Hill and Hatfield. This is the party that is delivering. We will be tough on crime.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I gently say that there a lot of people I need to get in? If we could shorten the answers, that would be helpful.

Tom Randall: I recently met my constituent David Winnett, who is a family law solicitor and a member of Resolution. He told me about Resolution’s vision for family justice. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend is familiar with that vision, particularly the importance placed on early legal advice in family disputes. Is there scope to add Resolution’s proposed scheme to the mediation pilots that the Government currently have planned?

Alex Chalk: Resolution does exceptionally important work, and in the Budget the Chancellor announced an additional £55 million of support for separating parents, including £12 million to deliver a new pilot. We are working with Resolution and other organisations to implement the pilot, which we aim to launch in September this year.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Shabana Mahmood: This Conservative Government promised 20,000 prison places by 2025, but so far they have only delivered under 6,000. The Justice Secretary is letting violent offenders out up to two months early because, as we found out from press briefings about dire warnings to No. 10, he has literally nowhere to put them. Instead of focusing on what happened 14 years ago under the last Labour Government, will he level with the public about the true scale of the prisons capacity crisis that is unfolding on his watch?

Alex Chalk: I have been very candid in saying that there are pressures in our prisons. But here is the thing: first, capacity in our jails is significantly higher than it was under Labour’s watch; and secondly, we have a record of delivery and there will be 10,000 places by next year. Here is the really important point. There are two questions that I posed in my statement. First, would Labour have let out up to 16,000 people during covid—yes or no? We said no. Secondly, would Labour have got rid of jury trials? We did not, but the Opposition would have. If they had made the same decisions that we did, they would have faced the same pressures. This is opportunism, it is silly, and Britain deserves better.

Shabana Mahmood: Bring on the general election and I will happily answer those questions. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State does not want to acknowledge the truth. Probation officers have told me that they genuinely fear not being able to keep the public safe, because they are being forced to rush through the early release of violent men in order to free up space. He will have heard the same concerns, so what is he going to do about it?

Alex Chalk: It is really important that the public are not inadvertently misled. Early release does not apply to those on life sentences, those on imprisonment for public protection sentences, those on extended determinate sentences, any sex offenders, any terrorism offenders and any serious violent offenders. The difference between our scheme and the Opposition’s is that, under their scheme, governors had no discretion to block the release of prisoners; under ours, they do. That is the difference: we prioritise public safety; the Opposition prioritise politics.

Elliot Colburn: My constituent Cindy went through hell when her daughter Victoria was brutally raped and attacked by a serial offender, Donald Andrews. Victoria took her life not long after. This monster was a regular offender before and, to add insult to injury, his whole-life sentence has been quashed and he is now applying for parole. Police psychologists and other professionals have deemed this attacker to be a high risk to society, so will my right hon. Friend make similar representations to the Parole Board—that this monster should never be allowed out?

Alex Chalk: Many people in this House will have heard about some appalling cases, but this case is truly one of the most shocking and upsetting that any of us will have encountered. I of course pass on my deepest sympathy to Cindy Legg for the tragic loss of her daughter Victoria. I can indicate that I did enter an overarching view opposing release, and I can announce that he will not be recommended for release. I hope that will be of some comfort to the family. In the Victims and Prisoners Bill we are introducing an additional safeguard: specifically, a power for the Lord Chancellor to order a second check on the release of the most serious offenders to keep the public safe.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Chris Stephens: The Government’s plans to introduce employment tribunal fees suggest that users should pay towards running costs, implying that only those using the system benefit from it. However, Resolution Foundation research shows that tribunals are heavily relied upon to enforce workers’ rights for all. Does the Justice Secretary not appreciate that any action to deter lower-paid workers from bringing forward cases will be to the detriment of the system as a whole?

Mike Freer: We do not believe that a £55 claim issue fee will be a deterrent. The tribunal system costs the taxpayer £80 million a year, and we do not think it is unreasonable that those who use it should pay a small contribution. To answer the question, we do not think it is a deterrent.

Kevin Foster: The tragic reality is that when intimate partners murder, women are the victims in 90% of cases. What progress have the Government made since the Wade review on ensuring that justice is done in these cases?

Gareth Bacon: We are increasing sentences by introducing statutory aggravating factors for murders that are preceded by coercive or controlling behaviour, that involve overkill or that are connected with the end of a relationship. For manslaughter involving sexual conduct, we intend to target cases where death occurs in the context of abusive or degrading sexual conduct. We have consulted publicly on sentencing, with starting points for murders preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour and for murders committed with a knife or other weapon.

Florence Eshalomi: People want access to justice. The Women’s Budget Group has found that, as a result of the disastrous Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, 85% of vulnerable women are unable to access civil legal aid and the majority of them are reaching crisis point. Does the Minister think it is right that these women are being left without basic access to justice?

Mike Freer: The hon. Lady raises an important  point and I would be happy to meet her and take representations on that specific point. I will also discuss it with Lord Bellamy, who, alongside me, deals with civil legal aid.

Luke Evans: I thank the Lord Chancellor for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) to discuss the egregious case of Colin Pitchfork, the double child rapist, who has had problems bouncing in and out through the Parole Board system. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend cannot change the law on this retrospectively, but what can he do in upcoming legislation to ensure that we have the protections for our communities to make sure they are safe and that reoffenders are not released?

Alex Chalk: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important case and for taking it up so powerfully on behalf of his constituents. In the Sentencing Bill, we have a proposal such that people who commit crimes of murder involving sexual and sadistic conduct will not be released, because they will be expected to serve a whole-life order. That is just, on behalf of the British people, and it also helps to keep communities such as that of my hon. Friend safe.

Chris Evans: The number of outstanding cases before Gwent magistrates courts has risen by 21% in the last year alone. However, the number of magistrates is now 20% lower in the whole of south Wales. We have heard today about the great work of the magistrates courts and the fact that magistrates come from all walks of life. What are the Government doing to ensure that hard-to-reach people are offering their services as magistrates, including ethnic minorities and, in particular, younger people?

Mike Freer: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I lead on diversity in the Department, and a piece of work is already under way on how we can increase the diversity of the magistracy and ensure that we recruit from those hard-to-reach groups. I am more than happy to meet him to swap ideas and discuss how we can continue to change the face of our magistrates.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Secretary of State for Justice agree that in England and across the United Kingdom, the ancient principle of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld and restored, and that the punishment should never be the process?

Alex Chalk: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was asked about my priorities when I was appointed to this role, and I said that the guilty should be convicted, that the innocent should walk free and that the public should be protected. It is very important that people who are accused of an offence have confidence that  the process will be prompt and humane. Ultimately, the British people are fair minded. They want people to be rightfully convicted, but they also want the innocent to walk free.

Ruth Jones: Since 27 February, there have been six sudden deaths at HMP Parc in Bridgend, and it appears that at least four of those tragic deaths were drug-related. What are the Government doing to ensure that inmates at Parc are kept safe and walk out of prison safe and well at the end of their sentence?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting a serious and important issue. I am happy to meet her to discuss it further, if she wishes.
In line with established protocols for deaths in custody, we are not able to comment on individual cases until the relevant investigation by the prisons and probation ombudsman has concluded, but HMP and YOI Parc has mobilised a range of actions to gather intelligence on drug entry points and on what has happened. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this matter privately.

Christopher Chope: When the National Crime Agency briefed Members who are interested in the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill, it estimated that between 550,000 and 800,000 serious sexual offenders are at large in this country. What are the Government doing to identify them? How many more prisons will we have to build to accommodate them?

Alex Chalk: I am proud that, since 2010, the number of people prosecuted for rape is up 32%, sentences are around 40% longer and the proportion of those sentences spent in custody has increased. We are determined to do everything possible to send a clear message that addressing serious sexual offending is a priority for this Government. We will clamp down on it, and those who perpetrate this vile crime can expect the punishment they deserve.

Alex Davies-Jones: The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and which the Government now support, is a great opportunity to tackle pernicious lawsuits that seek to silence journalists, campaigners and even sexual assault survivors, but two key deficiencies—the overly subjective test and the narrow definition of public interest—mean that anti-SLAPP campaigners tell me that they simply cannot support the Bill in its current form. Ahead of the important Committee stage, will the Lord Chancellor commit to looking at the amendment suggested by the News Media Association and meet me to address its concerns so that the Bill becomes fit for purpose?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. I am aware of the issues that have been raised. There is plainly a delicate balance to strike. It is incredibly important that individuals can access the courts to get a remedy in appropriate cases, and we want to make sure that the balance is properly struck. We will consider the amendment with care, as I have with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. If the hon. Lady wants to make representations to me, I will listen to them very carefully.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Worksop witnessed the horrific murder of Pauline Quinn by a man who had been released after serving time for a double murder. The probation service has since admitted that mistakes were made. However, the public still have many unanswered questions. Does the Minister agree that, although it is understandable that all the information sometimes cannot be put in the public domain, the probation service should seek to be as transparent  as possible and give communities that information, where possible?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He is right to highlight that there are occasions when it is not possible to make all the information public, but it is important that there is as much transparency as possible. If it would be helpful, I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.

Keir Mather: Selby is classed by the Law Society as a legal advice desert for housing, education and family legal aid. What are the Minister’s plans to fix that?

Mike Freer: The Legal Aid Agency keeps the location of providers under constant review. We have invested an additional £10 million over the last few months in those specific types of legal aid. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I can give him the details of where the spend is going in his local area.

Bob Neill: Joshua Rozenberg KC has presented “Law in Action” on Radio 4 over the past 20 years, and it has frequently shed important light on areas of our justice system that need attention. Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that today’s broadcast will be the programme’s last, because it has not been recommissioned? Will he also pay tribute to Joshua Rozenberg for his work?

Alex Chalk: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this point. Joshua Rozenberg has made a profound and important contribution to our country. Indeed, he is required reading, and I read him most days. I share my hon. and learned Friend’s profound regret, and I echo his sentiments. I think the whole House will wish Joshua Rozenberg well.

Rupa Huq: All through Lent, women nationwide have faced intimidation from the anti-choice group 40 Days for Life blocking their entrance to abortion clinics daily. Why is that happening, given that MPs voted by a ratio of 3:1 in 2022 for safe access zones, with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) being one of them?

Laura Farris: I concur with the hon. Lady that it is completely unacceptable that anyone should feel harassed or intimidated when exercising their legal right to abortion services. I hope she will be reassured to hear that it is anticipated that section 9 of the Public Order Act 2023 will be commenced no later than this spring. The consultation on the guidance published by the Home Office closed on 22 January and the final response will be published in due course. I must just say one thing, however: it is right that a balance will need to be struck where competing rights are engaged, including under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights.

Chi Onwurah: Our probation service is in crisis, with staff overworked, overstretched and undervalued. The expansion of the early release scheme will put yet more pressure on them, so what is the Minister doing this year to help our probation staff face that extra workload?

Alex Chalk: Probation officers do an exceptionally important job, as I believe we all agree. Let me set out what we have done in respect of prison and probation staff. First, we accepted every penny of the Prison Service pay review body recommendations. We have injected extra funding of more than £155 million a year into probation. Prison officers do a tough job, as do probation officers, but I am delighted to report that the retention of prison officers is improving, with the staff resignation rate in prisons dropping from about 10.7% to 8.3%, and their numbers have increased. As for probation, we have recruited about 4,000 people in the past three years. That is positive and we will continue to support them every step of the way.

Chris Bryant: Do we have enough crematoriums in the UK, given that many families are now having to wait three, four, five or six weeks for a funeral slot? Why is there such a gap between the cheapest crematorium in the country, which charges £408, and the most expensive, in Stevenage, which charged £1,400 last year?

Mike Freer: The challenges facing crematoriums, and in fact the whole funeral sector, are being reviewed by the Law Commission. This is about not just crematoriums, but burial space. There are challenges across the whole death management landscape, to use the technical term, which is why the Law Commission is investigating and bringing forward proposals.

Andrew Slaughter: The fees for civil legal aid are half what they were in 1996 and the number of providers has fallen by 40% in the past 10 years. If the Minister actually wants to do something about civil legal aid, why has he kicked the civil legal aid review into the long grass?

Mike Freer: Legal aid is always under constant review and I will always take advice from those closest to it. That is why I engage with, for example, the Bar Association, the Law Society and the judiciary on what we need to do. As for kicking things into the long grass, all I can say is that I want to get this right and if that takes time, it will take time.

Lindsay Hoyle: For the final question, I call Debbie Abrahams.

Debbie Abrahams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Justice Secretary did not quite answer my question on where the 67,000 criminal cases in the backlog are, and how they are being prioritised and communicated. I do not want another historical child sexual exploitation victim to be told by a Crown court that her case has been cancelled twice because it is not a priority.

Alex Chalk: The point I was endeavouring to make, although I perhaps did not do so well, is that listing is a judicial function. We have seen the senior presiding judge make a decision that certain sex cases and those most serious rapes, for example—all of them are serious, of course—will be given an early listing. As I say, I do not have complete control over that, but I do discuss it with the Lady Chief Justice and I know that the senior presiding judge is keen to get through those cases at the earliest opportunity.

Israel and Gaza

Andrew Mitchell: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Gaza. As the House knows, the United Kingdom has long been calling for an immediate humanitarian pause to allow for the safe release of hostages and more aid to reach Gaza, leading to a sustainable ceasefire without a return to destruction, fighting and loss of life.
Yesterday, the international community took a significant step towards achieving that. We welcome yesterday’s United Nations Security Council resolution 2728, which reflected widespread international support for Britain’s position and considerable efforts by our diplomats to secure a consensus. This is an issue that can polarise and divide, but yesterday in New York there was a shared sense of purpose. I am sure the whole House would agree that we must capitalise on this moment.
We want to see an immediate, sustained humanitarian pause, which would allow for the safe release of hostages and more aid to reach Gaza. That is what yesterday’s resolution called for, why the United Kingdom voted “yes” on that text, and why the Government are now focused on seeing the resolution implemented as quickly as possible. This resolution sets out the urgent demand for the
“unconditional release of all hostages”.
Hamas must act on this now. The kidnapping and violence on 7 October was appalling. It has been unconscionable to hold them in captivity for so long, and it is dreadful to hold them any longer. We strongly support the intensive diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States to secure their release.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, Lord Ahmad and I have met the families of hostages, and reiterated to them personally our desire to see their loved ones freed and their agony brought to an end. We urge all sides to seize the opportunity and continue negotiations to reach an agreement as soon as possible. Yesterday’s resolution also sent a clear message on the need for all parties to the conflict to uphold international humanitarian law and for delivery of aid to be scaled up urgently. This requires the lifting of all barriers impeding its delivery.
Palestinian civilians face a devastating and growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. His Majesty’s Government continue to reiterate these messages in their contacts with the Israeli Government, and the Government are exploring every avenue to deliver aid by land, sea and air. Last week, enough aid to feed over a quarter of a million people was delivered by land from Jordan. Britain is fully engaged in the international effort to set up a maritime corridor for aid into Gaza. Yesterday, the first airdrop of British aid by the Royal Air Force, with the support of Jordan, took place.
We regret that this resolution did not condemn the abhorrent and brutal terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October. The UK condemns these attacks unequivocally. We have been forthright in speaking up for Israel’s right to defend itself and ensure such an attack can never happen again. We want Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. An immediate humanitarian pause, leading to a sustainable ceasefire, is the best way to achieve a lasting peace.
We continue to work on the other core elements required for such a process to succeed. We have supported the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza under the leadership of Prime Minister Mustafa. An international support package is vital for building on Prime Minister Mustafa’s appointment. We also want to see the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel. Hamas can no longer remain in charge of Gaza. Finally, we need to offer a political horizon to the Palestinians that provides a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security.
The resolution passed by the Security Council yesterday does not guarantee this outcome, but it is a significant step forward. The Government will spare no effort in building on this opportunity. We want to create irreversible momentum towards a lasting peace. Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

David Lammy: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and echo his support for the formation of a new Palestinian Government, which must be supported internationally, alongside the need for a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in security and peace. Yesterday, the UN Security Council finally passed resolution 2728 calling for an immediate ceasefire, the immediate release of all hostages and full humanitarian access in Gaza. That was incredibly welcome and overdue. It must now be a turning point.
Labour welcomes, too, the fact that the Government were able to support the resolution. It represents a major shift in Government policy, which previously called only for an immediate pause rather than an immediate ceasefire. Why were the Government not able to back Labour’s motion last month? Much more importantly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the UN resolution is implemented in full, putting pressure on Hamas—who reportedly rejected the latest compromise—and Israel to reach agreement on a ceasefire now? That could not be more vital given the terrible human cost of the war, with more than 30,000 Palestinians dead, Israeli hostages still in chains nearly six months on from the 7 October massacre, and a man-made and preventable famine imminent.
Aid needs to get into Gaza at scale, and it also needs to be distributed. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is unmatched in its ability to distribute aid. With just a few weeks until the new financial year, can the Minister tell us whether the UK’s funding to UNRWA will resume?
The UN motion also said that all parties must
“comply with their obligations under international law”.
In that context, I will raise a specific incident with the Minister. On 18 January, an International Rescue Committee and Medical Aid for Palestinians compound was struck in a near-fatal airstrike by the Israeli military. The co-ordinates were known to Israel and formally de-conflicted. A British medical team and local staff were inside, who, since then, have received six explanations for that shocking incident, but the truth is still unclear. Will the Government support a full and independent  investigation to deliver accountability and reiterate that attacks on humanitarian workers are outrageous and must not happen?
The Foreign Secretary is not required to come to this House, but he is required to provide legal advice to the Business Secretary on arms exports. The law is clear that the Government cannot grant a licence if there is a clear risk that the items could be used in violation of international humanitarian law. The war in Gaza has seen numerous allegations made of serious breaches of humanitarian law by Israeli forces, and the International Criminal Court is currently conducting an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by all parties in Gaza.
On Friday, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking him to publish the most recent legal advice he has received on this matter. So I end by asking the Minister one simple question: has the Foreign Secretary received legal advice saying that there is a clear risk that items licensed by the UK might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law? The answer is a simple yes or no.

Andrew Mitchell: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his strong support for United Nations Security Council resolution 2728. He asks what the Government will do to ensure that it is implemented in full. Just as that resolution shows considerable success for British diplomatic work—particularly in New York—he and the House may rest assured that we will be doing everything we can to ensure that it is indeed implemented in full.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that that is a reflection of Labour’s position in the House. I hope that, by and large, the Labour position is supportive of the Government, but he should be quite clear that yesterday’s resolution represents a tremendous success for British diplomacy. It means that the European Union, the United Nations and the United States now take our position on the priorities. I remind the right hon. Member that what we said very clearly was that we needed an immediate pause, so that we could get aid in and the hostages out,
“leading to a sustainable ceasefire”.
He will see that British position fully reflected in what was decided yesterday in New York.
The right hon. Member asks me about UNRWA. I can tell him that the interim report by the former French Foreign Minister, Catherine Colonna—the final report is not due until 20 April—is now with the Secretary-General in New York and we hope to learn more about it today.
The right hon. Member refers to a specific strike, which the House has already heard about, and I agree with him entirely that we expect a full, total and definitive explanation for what happened from the Israeli Government. He asks me about arms export licensing. Let me give him a very clear response to that: we have a robust arms export licensing regime. All exports are regularly assessed against clear criteria. We regularly review Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law and act in accordance with that. As he indicated, we advise the Department for Business and Trade on the situation in-country. The DBT and its Secretary of State are the decision-making authorities, but I would  point out to him that UK exports are very small, amounting to 0.02% of Israel’s military imports, and we publish a comprehensive report on official statistics every quarter.
Finally, the right hon. Member asks me to publish the legal advice. I would point out to him that no Government do that. He will recall, I think, the highly contentious position taken at the time of the Iraq war not to publish the legal advice. For a party that aspires possibly in the future to be in Government, I am sure that Labour will see the merit of these conventions.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alicia Kearns: Yesterday the UN Security Council passed a resolution for a Ramadan ceasefire—in effect, a pause. Intrinsic to that pause was the release of hostages. Can the deputy Foreign Secretary please update us on progress to get those hostages home to safety, because the resolution was very clear that that should happen immediately? Who is enforcing the immediate release of hostages? Can he also clarify whether the Government agree with the US statement this morning that the UN Security Council resolution is non-binding? How are we going to ensure that, on both sides, the return of hostages and the ceasefire for Ramadan are enacted? If they are not, I fear that the UN Security Council will face an existential crisis.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, sets out with great eloquence what the international community now requires to take place as a result of resolution 2728 being passed yesterday. As I set out in my earlier remarks, we regret that the resolution has not condemned terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October, but I want to re-emphasise that all the things that Britain has previously been calling for are now accepted and were recorded in that resolution. We will, as my hon. Friend suggests, continue to do everything we can to ensure that the resolution is implemented.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement.
We very much welcome the UN Security Council resolution, which demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan. This is an important first step in achieving the permanent ceasefire that we on the SNP Benches have been urging for several months. We also welcome the UN demands for an immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. We call on all parties to adhere to their obligations under international law, to protect civilians and to lift all barriers to humanitarian aid.
That this motion specifically demands a ceasefire makes it legally binding, and it obliges all combatants to adhere to it, yet already there is significant concern that Israel does not intend to comply with the demands. The Israeli ambassador to the UN and the Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, among others, have indicated that they will not adhere to the demands of the ceasefire, with Mr Katz stating:
“The state of Israel will not cease fire.”
Israel, as we know, has form for ignoring binding resolutions of the United Nations, but rarely can it have done so in such a blatant manner and with such a complete disregard for the rules on which we all rely to keep us safe.
Given that Israel has signalled its intention to ignore the demand for a ceasefire, and rather than waiting for the inevitable to happen before acting, can the Minister assure the House that, if and when Israel launches its proposed offensive on Rafah, the work will already have been done to impose immediate sanctions, including, most importantly, the banning of arms sales to Israel, and that Tel Aviv will be under no illusion as to the consequences of its actions should it ignore this resolution?
Can the Minister update the House on what discussions have been had, or are being planned with our partners and allies, to ensure that we take decisive international action should Israel breach the terms of this resolution? Finally, can he confirm whether it is the opinion of the UK Government that, should Israel not adhere to the UN resolution, it will be in violation of a binding resolution and thus stand in breach of international law?

Andrew Mitchell: First of all, may I welcome the hon. Member’s support for the Government’s position, which has not always been the case in these statements? In particular, I welcome the consensual language from the SNP on the ceasefire, the release of hostages and getting aid in. That is very important. It means that the authority that the Prime Minister brought to this Dispatch Box, which is now the essence of this new resolution 2728, gets broad support from the House, which is very welcome.
On the remaining parts of what the hon. Member said, the Government want to try to bring people together. We want to end the violence as soon as we can, ensure that the hostages get out and aid gets in, and lift people’s eyes to a political track once this catastrophe is over. That is what the Government are trying to do, and the hon. Member will forgive me for not going down the rather more divisive line that he took.
In respect of military action in Rafah, the hon. Member will have heard what the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have said about the importance of respecting international humanitarian law and the position of civilians caught out in the open there, and I hope that he will agree with that.

Michael Ellis: The terrorist attack of 7 October on Israel has provoked widespread antisemitism in this country and around the world. The latest manifestation of that was at Manchester airport yesterday when Border Force guards made it apparent that they do not want Israeli Jews to enter this country. Two innocent victims of the music festival slaughter were berated and told:
“We have to make sure that you are not going to do what you are doing in Gaza over here.”
That was to two victims of the Nova music festival slaughter. Blaming all Jews for the actions of their country is obviously antisemitic. These are people in uniform acting for this country as Border Force officers. It is a disgrace beyond all proportion. The detention of those victims for several hours was clearly unlawful.  They are being offered free legal representation, which I would urge them to take up. Can the deputy Foreign Secretary confirm that Jews and Israelis are still welcome to enter this country?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his extremely robust comments on an absolutely outrageous, shocking and disgraceful incident, which is now being personally investigated by the Home Secretary. I think everyone will condemn without reservation the extraordinary events that appear to have taken place at Manchester, which were made even worse by the details that my right hon. and learned Friend gave of the detention that took place.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

Sarah Champion: I feel very uncomfortable about the Minister’s comments about taking credit for the UN Security Council resolution when the UK abstained twice in the process. There is not an immediate ceasefire and, after six months, I dread to think how many Gazans have been killed or will die of starvation. Given the rapidly deteriorating situation in Gaza, does he agree that it is vital that the Cabinet Minister responsible for overseas aid makes himself available to this House for scrutiny? Surely it is not right that Members are updated on the Foreign Secretary’s views via the media, rather than from his answering questions in this place. When will the Government do us the courtesy of responding to the Procedure Committee’s report?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady knows that I greatly respect her and the work that she does on the Select Committee. I do not think she should feel uncomfortable, because Britain has taken a principled position that is delivered by resolution 2728, which was passed yesterday. I hope that she will join the general approval for the strong British diplomatic effort that helped to deliver that.
On the Foreign Secretary, I believe that the Government response to the Procedure Committee report is imminent. She asks about the member of the Cabinet responsible for British aid and development policy: that is me. Both I and the Foreign Secretary speak with one voice.

Alec Shelbrooke: A lot of points will be made today arguing that responsibility for the ceasefire lies purely with Israel, but that is simply not true. A ceasefire must take place on all sides. Those who want Israel to lay down its arms but do not insist on Hamas laying down theirs are basically saying that Israel does not have the right to ensure that its security is in place. Until Hamas dismantle their terrorist organisation, which threatens the lives of Jewish people, who they do not think should exist—they do not think the state of Israel should exist—we must ensure that any ceasefire is observed by both sides of this coin.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that he will have noticed that I am trying to take a balanced approach to these matters. The reason Britain did not call for an immediate ceasefire before, as so many other countries did, was that it was perfectly clear that it was not going to happen. He will recall that, when asked about a ceasefire, Hamas made  it absolutely clear that their intention was not only to not have a ceasefire, but to replicate once again the terrible events that took place on 7 October.

Andy McDonald: The Minister has said on numerous occasions that the UK has a robust export licensing regime. Many Opposition Members are not satisfied with that response. Will he finally tell us what the legal advice is on whether this country is in compliance with our obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that those arms are not used to commit offences in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman really should not expect me to make a different point from the Dispatch Box having already set out the Government’s position. That is the position of the Government, and that is what I will reiterate. On the arms export licensing and the application of international humanitarian law, I set out the Government’s position clearly in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary. I have nothing further to add to that at this time.

Matthew Offord: The UN resolution has undermined efforts to secure the release of the hostages held by Hamas, with a collapse in negotiations only today. Hamas have reiterated their hard-line positions, which were previously criticised by the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the resolution will not only embolden Hamas, who hope to achieve a ceasefire without releasing the hostages, but enable them to maintain their grip on the people of Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: It certainly should not do that. If I may, I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the explanation of vote that was published at the same time as Britain supported the resolution yesterday. We said:
“We regret that this resolution has not condemned the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hams on the 7th of October. The UK condemns these attacks unequivocally.”
I hope that he will bear that in mind in reaching his conclusions about resolution 2728.

Julie Elliott: What is the Government’s response to Israel shutting off north Gaza to UNRWA, the only aid organisation with the ability to deliver aid at scale? When will the Government reinstate funding to UNRWA to stop and alleviate the starvation of Gazans?

Andrew Mitchell: We have made it clear that we will look at the interim report from Catherine Colonna, and the United Nations reports. We hope that reforms will be made in such a way that we can reinstate funding, but I should emphasise to the hon. Lady that no funding is due from Britain until the end of April. In respect of her point about the spread of UNRWA, it is the only organisation that has the assets in place—the warehouses, the vehicles, the logistical support—so it is essential that those logistical elements are available if aid is to be distributed effectively in Gaza.

Theresa Villiers: Constituents have been in touch to tell me that they feel badly let down by the vote at the UN yesterday. I just do not understand how the Minister and the Foreign Secretary can say that nothing has changed in policy terms when the UK has just voted for a resolution that does not  condemn the Hamas atrocity of 7 October, and de-links a ceasefire with the release of hostages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) pointed out, does that not make it less likely that the hostages will be released?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. The resolution sets out the urgent demand for the unconditional release of all hostages. We welcome the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States to that end—she will have seen the reports in the media. As I say, we have set out clearly in our explanation of vote our regret that the resolution did not once again condemn the terrorist attack, but she has heard us say repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that we do condemn it.

Afzal Khan: Over the past week, we have seen Israel continue to commit atrocities across Gaza, with the Al-Shifa Hospital besieged for several days. Medical staff from inside the hospital reported gun battles, workers being beaten, patients dying on the floor, and even execution-style killings. That is yet another example of Israel’s merciless targeting of civilians. Will the Minister unequivocally condemn Israel for authorising and carrying out such heinous attacks, and make clear that hospitals and places of refuge must not be targeted?

Andrew Mitchell: The House will not recognise all of the things that the hon. Gentleman has just said. Let me make it absolutely clear once again: Israel does have the right of self-defence, but she must abide by international humanitarian law.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a testament to how polarised and contested our world has become that the custodians of international security took six months to agree UN Security Council resolution 2728, which calls for a ceasefire, the release of hostages and access for aid. Does the deputy Foreign Secretary agree that it is concerning that vital UK aid has to be airdropped into Gaza by the Royal Air Force, effectively bypassing Israel? Should the new port being built off Gaza to operate the new maritime corridor become a permanent operation with inspections, allowing the international community to ensure that the scale of aid required gets into Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the former Chair of the Defence Committee for what he says. He is right that the best way to get aid into Gaza is by truck—by road—and that is what Britain has consistently pressed for. We know that there were 500 trucks a day before the catastrophe of 7 October. There has been an increase in March, but we are now looking at something like 150 a day. We are doing everything we can to try to ensure that we get aid into Gaza in the easiest way possible, but as my right hon. Friend said, we are also looking at all other options, including the airdrop that took place yesterday on 25 March in which the Royal Air Force dropped 10 tonnes of food. We anticipate that further airdrops will be necessary because of the situation he has outlined.

Munira Wilson: Can I set the record straight for Conservative Members that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been calling for  months for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, and that we welcome yesterday’s UN Security Council resolution? However, the reality is that northern Gaza is on the brink of famine, with children dying of malnutrition, and tens of thousands of children are being killed or maimed by Israeli forces’ bombardment. Does the Minister believe that Netanyahu’s Government are complying with the International Court of Justice’s provisional order, which states that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its forces do not commit any of the acts prohibited by the genocide convention? If he does not think that the Israeli Government are complying with that order, what is he doing about it?

Andrew Mitchell: In respect of the second part of the hon. Lady’s question, let me make the Government’s position clear: we respect the role and independence of the ICJ, but we do not believe, and have never believed, that the case launched now will be helpful in bringing the two parties together. She will know that the court has called for the immediate release of the hostages and the need to get more aid into Gaza, and we strongly agree with that. She will also know that the ICJ’s provisional measures order is binding on the parties to the dispute as a matter of international law, but she will see that through the work we have been carrying out, we are trying to address all the points that she made in the first part of her question. We are obviously grateful for the support of Liberal Democrat Members in trying to achieve that.

David Jones: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott)? The humanitarian situation in Gaza is, of course, dire. In northern Gaza, it is estimated that some 70% of the population are suffering the most appalling food shortages and are resorting to eating animal feed, bird seed and grass. Does the Minister not recognise that respected international partners such as Australia, Canada, Sweden and Denmark have now restored full funding to UNRWA, which is the most important and capable humanitarian organisation in Gaza? Does he not think that the United Kingdom should also do so as quickly as possible, and in what circumstances and under what conditions will that be done?

Andrew Mitchell: At the moment, Britain does not have a requirement to provide extra money, because we have fully funded UNRWA through our commitment to that organisation up until the next financial year, which effectively means the end of April. In an earlier response, I addressed the point that my right hon. Friend made so eloquently about the requirement for UNRWA assets to be used. As he knows, we will look very carefully at the two reports I mentioned—including the interim one, which should be available in New York today—in the hope that measures will be taken that will allow everyone, not just Britain, to restore funding to UNRWA in due course.

Beth Winter: Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. In the past hour, news agencies have reported that the Israeli National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has told Israeli Army Radio that, “We must enter Rafah  now”. Surely this announcement that a military assault will be undertaken on an area of 1.7 million displaced people is a breach of a binding UN Security Council resolution and of international law. The Minister must urgently set out what action he will consider to prevent the Israeli armed forces taking such action. More specifically, does the UK agree that should Israel proceed with this action and refuse to adhere to the demand for an immediate ceasefire, it will be in violation of a binding resolution and in breach of international law?

Andrew Mitchell: Given the position that the hon. Lady has just outlined, I am sure she will welcome yesterday’s resolution 2728 and the progress that it reflects. She has quoted a specific Israeli Minister, but she will know that there are many voices in Israel at this time. Israel is a pluralist democracy—the only one in the region—and we are hearing many different voices. In respect of any attack on Rafah, she will have heard the words of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and indeed myself at this Dispatch Box on the ill-advised nature of military action in Rafah at this time.

Greg Smith: I have listened carefully to the answers that my right hon. Friend has given about the resolution passed, but it is my understanding that only a few weeks ago, the UK explained at the UN that it could not vote for a resolution that does not condemn the atrocities Hamas committed, and that simply calling for a ceasefire would not make one happen. It even said last month that such a resolution
“could endanger the hostage negotiations”.
As night follows day, the resolution was passed yesterday, and the Israelis have had to withdraw their negotiators due to what they have described as “delusional demands” from Hamas. Will my right hon. Friend accept that this resolution has made a material change for the worse, and that getting the hostages out has now actually been made less likely?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The British position has always been very clear: we want a pause that enables the hostages to come out and enables food and vital humanitarian supplies to come in. We believe and hope that that will lead to a sustainable ceasefire, and I do not think there is anything in resolution 2728 that acts or goes against that.

Jess Phillips: The deputy Foreign Secretary stated earlier that he will expect a full explanation from Israel of the incident that was highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). That incident happened on 18 January, and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and I raised it with the Minister around eight weeks ago. I have also been to the UN in the past few weeks and raised it with diplomats there. When can we expect an explanation of why British aid agencies have been bombed by Israel, potentially using weapons provided in part by us? Can the Minister tell me when that explanation will come?

Andrew Mitchell: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for supporting the position that the British Government and I have set out—that we require an explanation from the Israeli Government of the actions  that took place. We continue to press, but she will understand that timing is not a matter on which the decision rests with the British Government. However, the Israeli Government will have heard her voice and, indeed, our voices on this matter.

Bob Blackman: The immediate impact of this resolution appears to be that Hamas have hardened their stance on the release of hostages, and the Israelis have said that they will not move until hostages are released. Apparently, the negotiations in Qatar were limited to being about only 40 of the hostages, namely the most weak and vulnerable. What is left out of the resolution is the requirement for immediate access to those hostages for the International Committee of the Red Cross, so that it can assess their condition and, indeed, whether they can travel at all. Will my right hon. Friend take action to demand immediate access to those hostages for the Red Cross, so that that assessment can take place?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes. We have been absolutely clear that the hostages must be released as swiftly as possible. My hon. Friend will have seen the reports about the negotiations that have been taking place over the past few days, and while I cannot give a running commentary, I can tell him that Britain is doing everything it possibly can to ensure that those negotiations are successful. To address what he said about the resolution, no one can be in any doubt about the position of the British Government, and indeed the House of Commons, on the release of the hostages.

Marsha de Cordova: We can all see the devastation in Gaza, where more than 30,000 people have been killed. Two thirds of those people are women and children, and aid is still not getting in. While that is taking place, the situation on the west bank is, equally, worsening, so will the Minister condemn the recent announcement that 800 hectares of the west bank have been designated as Israeli state land?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Member’s last point, she will know what we have consistently said about the illegality of these annexations, and I repeat that today. She talks about the position on the west bank. She will have seen the extensive work that our Foreign Secretary has put in by going there, and by ensuring that Britain does everything it can to make certain that, when we have the opportunity for a political track, the Palestinian Authority is able to move forward. On the points she made about Gaza and the lack of humanitarian support, she will have seen that on 13 March, Britain pledged a further £10 million this year, taking the total to over £100 million, and that on 15 March a field hospital funded by UK aid, from UK-Med, went into Gaza. It has UK and local medics, and we hope that it will shortly be treating 100 patients every day.

Richard Graham: I welcome the immediate humanitarian pause in UNSC resolution 2728, and I congratulate our diplomats on their role in this resolution. As the deputy Foreign Secretary has said, the key to delivering enough aid to prevent famine is the use of Israel’s land corridors, so could my right hon. Friend confirm whether Israel will provide enough access to prevent a potential famine, and whether both  Israel and Hamas are committed to continuing talks during the remaining 15 days of Ramadan, with the aim of moving towards a sustained ceasefire afterwards?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the unstinting work of British diplomats, for which our entire country should be extremely grateful—particularly the work that they have done in New York at the UN to drive forward Britain’s contribution to the resolution of this matter. On the restrictions on land entry, my hon. Friend is right that we need to do more. There has been some increase: 137 trucks got in on 24 March, and 81 trucks, mainly carrying food, were able to get in on the 25th. However, we urge the Israeli Government to do more about easing the restrictions on opening hours, to limit or stop the demonstrations at Nitzana, and to do more to grant visas, as there are some 50 applications for visas pending. If all those steps were taken, it would make a material difference to road entry.

Imran Hussain: After six months of bloodshed, starvation and the deliberate blocking of essential aid to Gaza, the UN Security Council has finally demanded an immediate ceasefire for the rest of Ramadan. However, let us be clear in this House that 15 days is nowhere near long enough to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe across Gaza. We see no meaningful end to the violence today, the 16th day of Ramadan—almost two months after the ICJ warned of the plausible risk of genocide. Frankly, that leaves the resolution ringing extremely hollow. Will the Minister heed the calls of this House and demand a permanent, lasting ceasefire, and can he explain how he expects this ceasefire, demanded by the Security Council, to be enforced if the UK Government are selling arms to the Israeli military—arms that are used to bomb Gaza and break this UN-mandated ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: I addressed the issue of the supply of arms in earlier answers on this statement. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is not recognising the importance of the resolution that was passed yesterday. First, it implemented the key things that Britain has been asking for, and secondly, it represents a unity that allows the issues that he and I care about so much to be advanced. I put it to him that resolution 2728 is of much greater importance than he submits.

Chris Law: It is clear to many international partners that the UK Government must now accept that Israel is potentially committing war crimes and genocide. If there is even a chance that Israel is breaking international law by potentially committing war crimes and genocide, why will the UK Government not take all precautions to adhere to their obligations as a party to the genocide convention and the arms trade treaty, and immediately cease arms exports to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect and with whom I have worked in the past, that there is something uniquely repulsive about accusing Israel of genocide, given the events that took place on 7 October, when more Jewish people perished in a pogrom than at any time since the holocaust and the second world war.

Apsana Begum: The UN Security Council has voted for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza for only the remainder of Ramadan. It is almost two months since the ICJ’s plausible genocide ruling, yet the killing, the destruction and the weaponised starvation go on. Can the Minister outline what conversations he and the Foreign Secretary are having with their counterparts in the United States to ensure that the UN resolution this week is implemented, and will the UK Government cease arming Israel, to ensure that the UK upholds the ICJ’s ruling and its provisional measures?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not precisely recognise the hon. Member’s description of the ICJ interim ruling, but I welcome her support for resolution 2728 and the position of the British Government. On the work we are doing with our counterparts, not only in America but all around the world, I can assure her that it will continue with the greatest vigour.

Sammy Wilson: No matter which way we look at it, the Government’s backing of the one-sided UN resolution yesterday represents an abject surrender to the demands of the Hamas propaganda machine and the cynical use of the Palestinian population as human shields. Can the Minister explain to us how such a resolution, which gives hope to the terrorists, will ever lead to the release of the hostages and ensure no repeat of the atrocity of 7 October, especially as it enables Hamas to preserve their units, regroup and re-establish their regime?

Andrew Mitchell: I simply do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description of resolution 2728. It is Hamas who are using the Palestinian people as a human shield in the grotesque way that we see in Rafah.

Kim Johnson: I welcome the UN Security Council finally calling for an immediate ceasefire, as well as for the return of all hostages, including Palestinian children who are in military prisons. The Minister must now indicate what enforcement measures the Government will implement to escalate the pressure to stop Israel’s military assault, uphold the ceasefire, and ensure that emergency assistance is provided through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to those being starved to death.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her support for UN resolution 2728, which, as I set out in the statement, reflects widespread international support for Britain’s position and the very considerable efforts by our diplomats to secure a consensus.

Tan Dhesi: The United Nations Security Council’s vote for an immediate ceasefire, the immediate release of all hostages and full humanitarian access in Gaza must be received by the UK Government as an immediate push for that UN resolution to be enacted. I hope that the Minister and the Government will act accordingly, because it is so necessary. Rather than obfuscating on the issue, will the Minister actually condemn from the Dispatch Box the recent announcement of 800 hectares of the west bank as Israeli state land? Surely this colonial-era land grab ploy, and the building of more illegal settlements, must be condemned and halted.

Andrew Mitchell: The position of the British Government, and I believe of the official Opposition, has always been clear on illegal settlements, and I reiterated it a moment ago.

Stephen Timms: I, too, warmly welcome yesterday’s resolution, and the change in the Government’s position that supported it. As both sides are now in clear conflict, with a clear breach of a United Nations Security Council resolution that was supported by the UK, what are the implications for future UK arms sales to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for resolution 2728, but there has been no change whatsoever in the position of the British Government. Britain has long been calling for an immediate humanitarian pause leading to a sustainable ceasefire, and without a return to destruction, fighting and loss of life, as the fastest way to get the hostages out and the aid in. That is what the resolution calls for and why the United Kingdom voted yes on that text. It is a very considerable tribute to the work of British diplomats around the world and in New York.

Richard Burgon: The passing of the UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire is incredibly welcome, and the issue now facing our Government is what they will do to ensure it is enforced. We saw overnight more Israeli bombing, and more killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It was right that sanctions were imposed on extremist settlers last month. If the Israeli Government continue to ignore the ruling of the UN’s highest body, should our Government not be clear that severe consequences will follow, including further sanctions, until Israel respects the ceasefire resolution and international law?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I dissent from the language he is using, and instead seek, as the British Government have consistently done, to ensure there is a pause that allows aid to get in and the hostages to get out, and for there to be a sustainable ceasefire. That is the right approach, and one that is substantially honoured in resolution 2728, which was passed yesterday.

Richard Foord: States and parties to the arms trade treaty are obliged to deny arms exports if there is an overriding risk that the arms transferred could be used to commit breaches of international humanitarian law. A Dutch court ruled on 12 February that the Government of the Netherlands must stop the export of parts for the F-35 joint strike fighter to Israel. The UK Government are also thought to export parts of the F-35 under an open general export licence. Will the Minister consider that under these circumstances we should stop the arms trade with Israel, and that at the very least this House needs a standing committee to examine arms exports?

Andrew Mitchell: I have long made clear that Britain has the strongest regulatory regime in respect of arms exports. I made clear in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary the Government’s view on that issue, and I have nothing further to add to what I said then.

Stella Creasy: I heard what the Secretary of State said about his pride in the principled position that he feels the Government have taken with a ceasefire, but he will know that we can only defend international law if we uphold it. He has heard across the House concerns that UK-made arms may be being used in Gaza, and he knows full well the details of the strategic licensing export criteria. He knows that man-made famine is a violation of those human rights obligations. That is why many of us are left wondering why the Government have not suspended arms sales to Israel in light of that evidence. I heard what he said earlier about the process; I understand the process he set out. He talked about reviewing licences every quarter. One must presume, as we are coming to the end of March, that this is the end of a quarter. When will we see a report published on the matter of arms sales to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: The point I made was that we publish comprehensive official statistics every quarter. That is something we will continue to do, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the arms regime. The hon. Lady raised the issue of famine, and she will know that the British Government are incredibly concerned about the failure to get more food into Gaza. That is why we have been pursuing a maritime route, why yesterday the Royal Air Force dropped some 40 tonnes of food, and why we have deployed a field hospital. We will continue to do everything we can, as she would wish, to ensure that famine does not take hold in Gaza.

Kenny MacAskill: The UN Security Council resolution is welcome, but it requires action by individual member states. As well as taking action on arms sales, will the UK ensure that there is no complicity with the Israeli war machine in the use of UK air bases by F-35s, or any other military co-operation with Israel as its war on Gaza continues? Secondly, will the Secretary of State ensure that the suspension of funding to UNRWA, which he recognises is the organisation best placed to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground, is lifted forthwith, given that it was solely based on Israeli allegations that have already largely been refuted?

Andrew Mitchell: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s final point will resonate across the House, but I am grateful to him for his support for resolution 2728, which was passed yesterday. He will know that Britain has fully funded the money for UNRWA in accordance with its commitments, and we very much hope that the position will be clarified as a result of the two reports for which we are waiting by the time any additional British money would be due.

Chi Onwurah: The UN resolution is welcome and long overdue, given the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Gaza, but I wish to press the Minister on the licensing of arms for export to Israel. He said that the process is robust and regularly reviewed, implying that because no action has been taken, those reviews have not raised any risks. I have previously asked him to condemn the many videos circulating on social media that show Israeli soldiers filming themselves performing acts that range from the unbelievably crass, such as posing on the bikes of dead Gazan children, to the vilely violent, such as  setting fire to food stores or bombing residential buildings—violent and potentially criminal. Will the Minister say whether he has seen those videos, and if so does he condemn them? Does he have confidence that no British exports are part of what seem to be vile and potentially criminal acts on the part of the IDF?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her support for United Nations resolution 2728, which was passed yesterday. She asks whether I have seen any such videos, and I have not. Were such videos to be genuine, and were they to portray what she describes, I am sure that everyone in the House would condemn them without qualification.

Ronnie Cowan: In today’s statement the Minister said that we need to offer a political horizon to the Palestinians, and he is asking that while those whose families, friends and neighbours have not already been killed are being bombed out of the shelters they made after being bombed out of their houses and homes. Surely only an immediate permanent ceasefire will afford the people of Palestine the opportunity to lift their eyes to an optimistic political horizon.

Andrew Mitchell: The Government have set out a clear vision, together with our partners, which we are seeking to drive forward so that when this catastrophic conflict is over, everyone may focus on that political track. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was after the second intifada that progress at Oslo was made, and we must hope that that might be possible once again. On what is happening in Gaza, I draw his attention to my earlier remarks that it is absolutely appalling that Hamas are cynically using the good people of Gaza as a human shield, as they continue to incarcerate the hostages who should be released today.

Debbie Abrahams: I add my voice to those of colleagues who have expressed significant and severe concerns about arms manufacturing and exports to Israel in the current context. I met a number of sole remaining members of Palestinian families who have been wiped out in Gaza. I mention that not to highlight the appalling tragedy but to focus our minds on what it means. One of them had lost all her relatives—more than 50—and is the only one of her family left. To echo the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), will the Minister reassure us on what he is doing with the international community to ensure that resolution 2728 is applied by Israel and Hamas and that we get aid into this appalling situation?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about the price of conflict in appalling individual suffering. Everyone in the House will agree with her in that respect. On arms export licensing, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. She will, like many, welcome 2728, because it expresses, with the full authority of the United Nations, a pathway ahead. Britain will do everything it can to make sure that that pathway is pursued.

Clive Efford: Israel has widespread control of the borders of Gaza and much of the land within it. Given that is the fact of the situation on the ground, are we not then entitled to assume that the  restrictions on the flow of aid into Gaza are deliberate on the part of Israel? Should that not therefore make us review the sale of arms to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: In terms of the restrictions to which the hon. Gentleman refers, a little earlier I set out how I believe those restrictions can be mitigated, particularly in respect of the opening hours at various crossing points. There is also the need for more visas, some 50 of which I mentioned are pending. He may rest assured that the Government use our very strong relationships in the region with Egypt and Israel to propagate the case for more aid and more humanitarian relief getting in by all means. We also do more than that, because we were dropping food from the air only yesterday, thanks to the work of the Royal Air Force. We will do more of that if we cannot get more in through the road routes.

Florence Eshalomi: The Minister will remember that last week, in the previous statement, I mentioned a briefing I had attended with other Members that was led by leading aid organisations, including Oxfam, Islamic Relief and Action Against Hunger. They detailed the scale of the suffering and the scale of the man-made famine. The Minister has been on his feet for more than an hour now, and he has mentioned all the different ways we are getting aid in, but the reality is that only 137 trucks entered Gaza yesterday, according to Oxfam. We know that pre-October it was 500 trucks a day. UNRWA is unmatched in its aid distribution. The Minister has said that. Does the Minister not agree that a way to mitigate this suffering, is to restore the funding to UNRWA now?

Andrew Mitchell: The funding to UNRWA from Britain has not stopped; we are paid up effectively until the end of April. Let me reassure the hon. Lady that as soon we have seen the two reports to which I have referred, I very much hope that, subject to the necessary changes being made, we will indeed be able to commit to the future funding that she and I would like to see in the right circumstances.

Allan Dorans: It is becoming increasingly apparent that Israel has no intention of complying with international law. It is refusing entry to International Criminal Court investigators; it has flat out denied the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice; it has not adhered to the legally binding orders from the ICJ advisory opinion of 26 February; and, it has ignored other UN resolutions calling for access to humanitarian aid. What else can the Government do to put pressure on Israel to adhere to international law?

Andrew Mitchell: As I have set out previously to the House, we have previously assessed that Israel is committed and capable of complying with international humanitarian law, and that is kept under review. Were there to be any change in the position and view of the British Government in that respect, we would inform the House.

Andrew Slaughter: On that matter, the Government do sometimes publish legal position statements. According to the Cabinet Office, on  11 December 2023 the Government published a statement of the legal position in relation to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, and it published a similar legal position statement when introducing the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in July 2022. Will the Minister publish such a statement setting out any breaches of international law by any parties in the Israel-Gaza war?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman, who is an enormously distinguished lawyer, is well aware that we do not disclose our internal legal advice, and that has consistently been the position of Governments of both the major parties. We have no plans to change that position.

Emma Hardy: The Minister has repeatedly said that international humanitarian law must be adhered to, but those words are meaningless unless they are followed by action, so what consequences will the British Government introduce for any country found guilty of committing war crimes by the ICC, such as by the deliberate withholding of food and aid to another country?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady invites me to qualify or add to the words I have already used to answer that and similar questions. I am sorry to disappoint her, but I am not going to do so.

Rupa Huq: For what will soon be six months, this Government have repeatedly rejected calls for an immediate ceasefire from MPs and aid agencies, so I welcome the changed position taken at the Security Council yesterday. However, I am confused by this insistence that the Government’s position has not changed. Can the Minister clarify that he is calling for an immediate ceasefire, that the UN resolution is binding and must be implemented immediately, and that there are consequences for non-compliance? Any dither and delay, including with UNRWA, means more innocent civilians killed and more children starving.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is not right in what she says about there being a change in the Government position, for the reasons that I have repeatedly set out. The United Kingdom has long been calling for an immediate humanitarian pause leading to a sustainable ceasefire, and that is what resolution 2728 seeks to deliver.

Toby Perkins: I understand what the deputy Foreign Secretary says about wanting both sides to acknowledge United Nations Security Council resolution 2728, but he must know that the people in Gaza facing starvation, going to bed every night wondering whether it will be their last, do not have the power to bring the hostages back. The people who have the power to bring the hostages back are sitting in five-star hotels in Qatar, so it is useless to allow the aid for people in Gaza to be blocked by Israel, and for them to continue to be on the end of a bombardment, while somehow suggesting that they are masters of their own destiny. Will he say what this Government will do in the event that Israel continues to ignore a binding United Nations Security Council resolution?

Andrew Mitchell: The remedy for what the hon. Gentleman so eloquently describes in his question rests with Hamas and the negotiators in Qatar. If they release the hostages and a pause is agreed, that will lead to the resolution of all the points that he has so rightly made.

Justin Madders: I have heard what the Minister said about not releasing legal advice, which is clearly disappointing for Members in this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has already said, the Government have issued legal advice in the past, and this is a matter of great interest to my constituents. If a country took offensive action contrary to a UN resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, I would not need to see the legal advice because that would clearly be a breach of UK arms export licences.

Andrew Mitchell: I note that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that we will not release the advice, but I can only point to the precedent to which I referred earlier—one that has been strongly endorsed on both sides of the House.

Margaret Greenwood: The appalling deaths of children in Gaza have brought condemnation from around the world and, of course, immense psychological trauma to their families and friends. On 27 February, I asked the Minister whether he would recognise that the killing of 12,000 children shows clear evidence of collective punishment. The Minister did not answer my question. That figure has risen with the deaths of a further 1,000 children, so will he now answer my question and recognise that the killing of 13,000 children shows clear evidence of collective punishment?

Andrew Mitchell: No, I will not do that, but I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in calling for Hamas to release all the hostages they are holding as swiftly as possible, so that the other points in the statement, which I hope I have set out clearly to the House, can be achieved.

Ben Lake: The deputy Foreign Secretary rightly referred to the devastating and growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the urgent need to increase the delivery of aid by land, sea and air. He mentioned that the first delivery of UK aid by the Royal Air Force took place yesterday. Does he anticipate that future air drops will increase in frequency until such time as the barriers to the delivery of aid via land are lifted?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the delivery of aid from the air, for numerous reasons that hon. Members will understand, as suboptimal. The key way of getting urgently needed aid into Gaza is by truck and by road, but needs must, which is why the RAF was able to deliver some 40 tonnes yesterday. If the position continues as it is, Britain expects to get aid into Gaza by sea and air as well as by land.

John Martin McDonnell: The Minister said there was precedent on the non-publication of legal advice. There was a precedent set—you and I were here, Mr Deputy Speaker—in the debate on the  Iraq war, when the legal advice was fully published. That was to provide protection for the Government and Members of the House in their deliberations, as well as to provide advice. Does he not appreciate that we now have the Security Council resolution and the ICJ decision, which mean that any actions by a Netanyahu Government against those decisions and that judgment will actually be portrayed as war crimes? Any Government that supply arms to that regime therefore can be equally accused of war crimes, and any Member of the House supporting the Government in those actions is open to that charge as well. Does he not appreciate what Members are saying to him about the rule of law and the importance of the House abiding by the rule of law?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government are second to none in seeking to uphold the rule of law, and that point has been consistently reiterated from this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of the Government publishing legal advice and cites in aid the advice published by the then Labour Government in respect of the Iraq war. I do not think that is a wise avenue to go down.

Rachael Maskell: The Armed Forces Minister has stated that Israeli military personnel have been training alongside UK armed forces. As a result, we clearly want to know what purpose that had, what operations those individuals have been involved in, whether they have impeded the delivery of aid or, indeed, have perpetrated suffering against the people of Gaza, and how that complies with international humanitarian law.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear me say that the British military forces always comply with international humanitarian law and are absolutely required to do so. I am sure she will note, like me, that when it comes to the issue of targeting and military operations, just as Britain uses extensive military lawyers and legal advice in making those decisions, so too do the Israeli Government.

James Murray: We desperately need an immediate ceasefire, the immediate release of all hostages and full humanitarian access in Gaza, as the UN Security Council resolution now calls for. I recently met Medical Aid for Palestinians, which talked about the severe difficulties with rules on aid. More widely, we know that aid agencies have reported that the list of goods allowed into Gaza by the Israeli Government is difficult to access and can change without warning. Will the Minister put pressure on the Israeli Government to publish an official list and one that includes all the nutritional and medical aid that is needed?

Andrew Mitchell: The British Government and the department within the Foreign Office that deals with humanitarian aid and planning look all the time at all those matters. The hon. Gentleman raises specifically the issue of medicines, and I hope he will be pleased to see that Britain deployed a field hospital on 15 March funded by UK aid under UK-Med. As I mentioned earlier, UK and local medics will be working there and will be treating—fairly shortly, I hope—100 patients a day.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers. Will he confirm what discussions have taken place and what actions have been agreed to ascertain whether there is any assistance we can provide to ensure that Israel is in a position to safely end the conflict, having achieved security for their nation and their people?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will know that it is a central aim of Government policy to ensure that both Israel and Palestine can live safely and securely side by side behind secure borders—the implementation of the two-state solution. Everything the Government do is designed to try to advance that objective, which I know he strongly supports.

Brendan O'Hara: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister repeatedly said that neither has he seen, nor is he in possession of, Catherine Colonna’s interim report, suggesting instead that it had only been delivered to the United Nations in New York. Could he clarify whether he or his officials are in receipt of the interim report, have seen it, have had a read-out of it, or have been made aware of its contents? If any of that is true, why has it not been delivered to the House, particularly given that this is the last sitting day before recess in this financial year? It is hugely important that the House is aware of that.

Roger Gale: Mr O’Hara, that is not a point of order for the Chair; it is an endeavour to extend the questions on the statement. If the Minister wishes to respond, I will allow him to do so.

Andrew Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. He rightly says that today is the last day before the House rises for the Easter recess. That is why, in discussions with the usual channels, the Government offered this statement today, which I very much hope he welcomes. My understanding is that the interim report from the former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna was received by the Secretary-General’s office yesterday. It is my hope and expectation that the British Parliament representative at the United Nations in New York may be able to have sight of it today, but neither I nor officials in London have had sight of the report as things stand.

Roger Gale: On Members’ behalf, I thank the Minister of State and those on the Opposition Front Bench for remaining for well over an hour and taking the relevant questions.

Building Safety

Lee Rowley: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the continuing work to fix buildings with unsafe cladding across England, and the Government’s increasing determination to enforce against those who fail to take responsibility.
Since the beginning of 2023, there has been a step change in all aspects of remediation in England, from a limited programme to full coverage of all residential buildings over 11 metres; from developers not taking responsibility to their now being responsible for £3 billion of remediation across more than 1,500 buildings; from just over 1,600 buildings in remediation programmes last year to over 4,000 now; from 783 buildings having started or completed work in February 2023 to over 1,800 now; and from only 461 having completed last February to 863 now. Every month more buildings are identified, and more are beginning and completing works. That means that for some, albeit not all, the end is in sight.
From the start, we have prioritised the remediation of the highest risk buildings. Ninety-eight per cent of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous Grenfell-style aluminium composite material cladding have either started or completed work. Of the 10 occupied buildings remaining, two will start work this month and enforcement is being taken against a further six. Substantial progress can also be seen for buildings over 18 metres, with over half of known buildings having either started or completed work. The much more extensive work required for buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres is well under way. Since the full launch of the cladding safety scheme last July, over 400 buildings in the scheme have live applications. Grant funding agreements have been completed or are being signed for 152 buildings, and works have started on site for the first building. A further 4,000 buildings are being investigated and, where necessary, will be invited to apply to the scheme in the months ahead.
Further transparency is being brought to the social housing sector. Registered providers report that work has started on 525 buildings as of the end of November 2023, up from 394 at the end of August 2023. A further 200 have now been completed. For the first time, last Thursday we published detailed information on a provider-by-provider basis, which will be updated quarterly to ensure that residents can track what their individual provider is doing on remediation. While many buildings are being fixed or, better still, have completed remediation, there remains a reducing core of building owners who continue to hold up remediation. That is unacceptable. The Government continue to do whatever is necessary to change that.
All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. The Government are leading the way on enforcement, with strategic interventions by our recovery strategy unit targeting the most egregious actors who are unwilling to make their buildings safe. The RSU was key to forcing Wallace Estates to agree to four remediation orders, ensuring that 400 leaseholders will be safe in their homes. Our legal action forced  Grey GR, a subsidiary of Railpen, to fix building safety defects at Galbraith House within three weeks. The first trial against Grey GR for Vista Tower in Stevenage is imminent. Nine remediation contribution orders were taken out against three further organisations last week, including developers, to recover funds paid out by both taxpayers and leaseholders to fix buildings. We will continue to take action against those who do not step up to their responsibilities.
Colleagues in the fire and rescue services and local councils are critical to the fight to ensure that residents are safe, and we are working with them to increase action. Many councils and fire and rescue services are doing a good job, but some need to do more. Over the last year, the additional funding that we have provided for councils has meant that the pace of enforcement has stepped up markedly. Councils are informing us of enforcement action at a rate of four per week, compared with one per month in 2022, and we expect that to accelerate further. To support that, today we are publishing our first league table, outlining where enforcement is being taken so that residents can see exactly what is happening and where. We will regularly update the league table to ensure that the public remains sighted on their authorities’ enforcement activity.
Our focus now is on more, and more consistent, enforcement. Last week, I met the Building Safety Regulator and sector leaders to discuss how we can build a shared plan to increase the pace of remediation further. Today, I am announcing a number of initiatives to boost enforcement: a further £6 million to council enforcement teams, the development of a new regulatory protocol for greater consistency and a new fund that partners can access for legal support in complex cases.
For a task as big as this, remediation of buildings with issues was always going to take time. There is no doubt that in some parts of the sector it is still taking far too long. Yet already, almost 60,000 homeowners have peace of mind that remediation is complete, and a further 300,000 dwellings are well on the way to the same.[Official Report, 15 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 2WC.] (Correction) Every week that goes by, more is done: there are more starts and more completions and, vitally, more of those who are unwilling to do the right thing are being exposed. We will not stop until we have fixed cladding issues. Today, I hope the House can see the real and accelerating progress that is being made.

Roger Gale: I call the shadow Minister.

Mike Amesbury: Let me start by thanking the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I must be clear that I do not share his enthusiasm that the end of the building safety crisis is somehow near, and neither do campaigners up and down the country, including End Our Cladding Scandal. Just last week, new Government figures, to which the Minister referred, showed that only 21% of high-rise blocks have been fully—I stress, fully—remediated. We are now nearly seven years on from the Grenfell fire, the tragedy where 72 people lost their lives, yet hundreds of thousands of families and individuals are stuck in flats with dangerous, flammable defects, whether cladding, missing fire breaks or wooden balconies. The toxicity of this crisis goes  on and on.
Everybody deserves to feel safe in their own home. Despite years of reactive policies from the Government, and now billions of pounds committed through a plethora of funds to fix unsafe homes, progress remains painfully slow for far too many. All of that means that far too many people are living in fear of their lives every day. What those families need is action now to speed up remediation and to hold all those responsible for the building safety crisis to account. Action is needed for all those trapped in unsafe buildings facing eye-watering bills, whether for the black hole of service charges or for insurance premiums. They simply have no control over their future. Action is needed to let the residents of these buildings finally turn the page.
I am disappointed that today’s statement is not much more than a rehashing of statistics and data points that were put in the public domain last Thursday. I am particularly disappointed that it does not include the second staircase guidance, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that the absence of that guidance has held up the construction of thousands of safe homes across the country. In London alone, the Mayor has said that the botched implementation has stopped at least 38,000 homes from being built. During the delay, key design details have been missing, and both house builders and local authorities have been left in limbo. What is more, some sites have completely ground to a halt. What exactly is taking so long? How many buildings nationwide does the Minister estimate have been held up? It would be useful if the Minister could provide an update on the position on personal emergency evacuation plans, which many campaigners continue  to push.
Moving onto the specifics of today’s announcement, I welcome the new initiatives to boost enforcement, but they would more effective if they were part of a broader strategy instead of being reactive, piecemeal announcements. The initiatives are just a drop in the ocean of what is needed. While I welcome the support for council enforcement teams, the Minister and the Government simply cannot pass the buck. The Department needs to play a more active and robust role. I welcome the new regulatory protocol for greater consistency, but I would like to see the details and a timeframe. The Minister rightfully calls out some owners and developers, but will he also call out the manufacturers and make all those responsible for the building safety crisis pay?
Finally, I want to mention the scale of the problem with insurance premiums, which the Minister will have seen reported in The Independent earlier this week. It is constantly raised with me and I know it is raised with the Minister, too. He will be aware of allegations of profiteering and the many thousands of pounds being paid in premiums, in some cases going up by 1,000%, even when buildings have been remediated and made safe. He previously mentioned pooling schemes. The industry has put forward its own scheme, which will go live on 1 April. Residents and campaigners are not convinced that it will bring premiums down, so I would like an update from the Minister today.
The Minister will not need reminding that today’s announcement is just one cog that needs to be turned to solve the building safety crisis. I look forward to working constructively with him to do the right thing for the hundreds of thousands of people still trapped in the building safety crisis. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I welcome the elements of his remarks that confirm that we are making progress. I will comment on some of the others in a moment. I take it from his reference to the statement being just a “rehashing” of stats that he is pretty content that the stats are moving in the right direction. Indeed, part of the point of today’s statement is to highlight that we have made significant progress in recent months and over the past year, while still recognising, as I did in my opening remarks, that there is much more to do. There are clearly actors who are not doing the right thing, and we are trying to take systematic, consistent and coherent action against them.
I just caution the hon. Gentleman that I did not indicate that the end of the building safety issues is near, despite both of us sharing the desire for that to come as soon as possible. I did, however, say that progress was being made. To get to the end point, we must make progress. I think what the statement demonstrates, just like the written ministerial statement in October, is that we continue as a Government and as a country to make progress.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that this has taken time, but if we look at individual funds, we can see that those that were open the earliest are now coming to a conclusion. For the ACM fund, 98% of known buildings are remediated or on the way to being remediated. That was opened in 2018-19. For the building safety fund for buildings over 18 metres, over half are either completed or on the way to being completed. That was opened in 2020. So, again, there is progress. These things take time. They are often very complicated. Unfortunately, we often have to drag freeholders to do the right thing, for example to encourage owners of buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres to get involved in the fund. We are doing that as actively as we can. There is work to do, but further progress is being made.
The hon. Gentleman raises the specific question of second staircases. The statement is an update on building safety, but I will extend the scope slightly. We have committed, having already provided some information in recent months, to providing further information on second staircases by the end of the month. I can confirm that that will occur this week.
On enforcement, I gently say that it is absolutely incorrect to talk about reactive, piecemeal announcements. If we go down the list of what is being announced in the league table today, we can see clear evidence of progress being made all across the country: London Fire Brigade, 94 statutory enforcement notices; Greater Manchester, 32; East Sussex, 26; West Yorkshire, 14; and Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, 11. I could go on and on and on. There are multiple pages here where we can see progress. The Government are making the information as transparent as possible, so that residents who are impacted can understand where their individual local bodies are and hold them to account where necessary.
Finally, on insurance premiums, the hon. Gentleman and I share a great deal of focus on trying to make things move as quickly as possible. I completely agree with him that progress needs to be made. I am pleased that the industry has announced the launch of its industry-led insurance premium scheme, from 1 April next week. Bluntly, it has taken too long. I have spent an awful lot of time over the past few months encouraging  the sector to do that. From the moment it opens, we will monitor extremely carefully what the impact will be on the most affected buildings. I hope we will be able to say more about that in the coming months. I encourage colleagues who have insurance concerns—many Members in the Chamber have already raised them with me—to continue to raise them. Where remediation is under way or has concluded, we would expect some form of accommodation to be made against the premiums in those buildings unless there was a good reason not to do so. If hon. Members have individual examples of where that has not occurred, I would be very grateful to receive them.

Roger Gale: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: It is some years since our late colleague, David Amess, led a few of us who were interested in fire safety even before Grenfell.
We must remember that in the months after Grenfell, everyone backed away thinking that residential leaseholders would be the only people who would have to bear the £10 billion to £15 billion cost of remediation—and that was before we knew all about the other fire defects, which our building control standards and inspections had allowed to accumulate over the decades. We should all hang our heads.
The Minister rightly talked about needing more transparency. I say in passing, although it is a very serious point, that anyone who looks at page 3 of the Financial Times today, on the possible future policy on ground rents, will see an indication that people who own such buildings—the pension funds, the Long Harbours of this world, the Tchenguizes’ interests and others—ought to be looking at their own social and environmental responsibilities, getting rid of ground rents and spending their money on making buildings safe for everyone to live in.
Cladding groups and leaseholders’ groups deserve praise, as do the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the present chair of the Government’s Leasehold Advisory Service, who can point out some of the things that have not yet been done. This is an interim statement and we look forward to hearing more, whether by written or oral statements, but may I say to the Minister that the one group that seems to have been let off is the insurance companies who backed the developers, architects, surveyors, builders and component suppliers?
The Government should find a way to take together the potential claims of all the residents, tenants, leaseholders and owners of properties, and have a roundtable with insurance companies and get the billions of pounds out of them that they would have to pay if it went to court, without paying the lawyers half the money.

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He has had a long-standing interest in this issue and in leasehold on a broader basis. He is absolutely right to highlight the tireless work of so many people across the country, including the groups and organisations that came together, both on the leasehold side, which he is involved in, and on the cladding side. They did not want to have to come together and spend so much time to make progress and end our cladding scandal, but they work incredibly hard to ensure that we make progress. I am grateful for all their constructive work  with us. It is absolutely the case that more needs to be done, but as the statement outlined, week by week and month by month, we are making progress. I hope we can do more in the months ahead.
Finally, my hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on leasehold and highlights his thoughts very clearly. No decisions have been taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been clear about his own personal views. I know my hon. Friend’s views will have been heard as a part of the discussion.

Marsha de Cordova: One of my priorities in Battersea is to ensure that everyone has a safe, decent and affordable home. However, seven years on from the devastation of the Grenfell fire, many of my constituents are still living in unsafe buildings. Government support has so far been available for buildings 11 metres or over. It beggars belief that that is the case. Can the Minister be clear about what the Government are doing to ensure that prioritisation for funding is allocated according to risk, so that all households are protected, including the many in my constituency that are below 11 metres?

Lee Rowley: With the greatest respect, I do not think it does beggar belief that a line has been drawn at 11 metres. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position; I had hoped that she would listen to my answer in the first instance before making comments on it.
This is a relatively recognised and relatively long-standing position. Following the commitment given by my predecessors back in 2022, when we have received concerns about buildings under 11 metres we have taken action. We have looked at those buildings and have commissioned reports when that has been necessary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it has subsequently been confirmed that they do not require remediation. If any Members have outstanding concerns about buildings less than 11 metres high, I encourage them to get in touch and we will happily look at them in more detail, because if the trajectory that we have seen in the cases that have been raised with us so far already is followed, it is highly likely that life-critical safety concerns will not be visible once we have done so.

Rachel Maclean: There is a complex interplay between what the Minister has said today about building safety, cladding and remediation and the agenda relating to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which, of course, many of us in the Chamber are still right behind. Will the Minister please reassure us that the Government as a whole remain committed to this vital transformative and conservative agenda?
As the Minister himself has said from that Dispatch Box, there is no prouder word in the English language than “freeholder”. We want to see more freeholders liberated from the tyranny of the ground rent grazers and some of the deep-pocketed people in this so-called sector who are now trying to make out, if the reporting is accurate, that if we press ahead with our reforms to reduce ground rent to a peppercorn, the whole sector will be destabilised and the Minister’s vital work of remediation will somehow be affected. I, like many others, do not accept that assertion in any shape or form—it is, of course, complete nonsense—but will the Minister please reassure me, and many others, that we  will continue to reform this sector and liberate the leaseholders so that they can own their properties, while also continuing to make them safe?

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend is right to say that the work that has been put into the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and the measures that we have introduced in it, will be transformative for leaseholders. I know that, and I know she knows that, because she was the person who put in the work in the first place, and I pay tribute to what she did in this role previously.
My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the link between those who have been impacted by cladding and leaseholders in general. It is through reforms such as those in the Bill that we will be able to bring even more transparency, including on insurance, which the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) rightly raised. That applies not just to leaseholders who are impacted by cladding remediation, but to leaseholders in general. We will ensure that they know what they are paying for and can fully recognise whether the arrangement is fair or not.

Stephen Timms: I thank the Minister for meeting leaseholders from Barrier Point in my constituency last week.
During a Zoom call last night, leaseholders from Waterside Park made it clear that although the original builders and the current freeholder had agreed on the specification of the work to be carried out, the work itself was being held up by quibbling between their respective lawyers over details. Is there anything that the Minister or his Department can do to knock heads together and get this long-awaited work under way?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the inherent challenges that may feature in processes that involve a lot of actors, a lot of complexity and often a lot of money, but it is absolutely the Government’s view that they must proceed as expeditiously as possible and that the organisations and actors involved in them should not hold them up unnecessarily. There must be a reasonable accommodation for reasonable discussions, but the overarching objective to ensure that buildings are remediated, and to allow leaseholders to get on with their lives even more than they are able to do at present, is paramount. If there are particular concerns or particular issues from which the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Member, thinks we can learn in order to improve the policy, I shall be keen to hear about them.

Matthew Offord: The cladding safety scheme is meeting the cost of addressing fire safety risks associated with cladding on residential buildings over 11 metres high, but that does not include low-rise buildings. The Minister has been contacted by Barnet Council following an investigation of a fire at a low-rise residential property last year, which established that 459 properties in my constituency constituted a category 1 hazard as defined by the Housing Act 2004. The council says that the remedial works will cost each homeowner £23,000, an unaffordable amount for many of my constituents. While low-rise buildings pose less of an escape hazard than high-rise buildings in the event of a fire, the widespread existence of cladding defects is a result of regulatory and industry failure and was not caused by actions taken by my constituents. Does the  Minister agree that that is simply not fair, and will he draw up proposals as a matter of urgency to assist my constituents in this endeavour?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of low-rise blocks. According to the evidence that the Department has seen when looking at properties less than 11 metres high, it remains the case that the overwhelming majority do not require fire safety remediation, but I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about that in more detail. It is important that we continue to highlight the lower likelihood of a problem such as we are discussing today, but it is also important that there are routes to redress. The extension of the Defective Premises Act 1972 provides an opportunity in that regard. It is important for residents, leaseholders and others to be aware of such avenues, and I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those further as well.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for the meeting I had with him and his staff recently about an issue facing my constituents. It concerns Galliard Homes and residents of Drayton Park in my constituency, who have been denied access to necessary information. Galliard Homes claims that the fire safety regulations have been adhered to, but that is hotly disputed by just about everybody else. As a result the residents are paying vastly enhanced insurance rates and are unable to move, unable to sell their homes, and unable to move on with their lives in any way. That is causing unbelievable levels of stress, of which many Members are well aware from events in their own constituencies.
The Minister is engaged with the issue and fully understands it. May I ask him to do two things? First, will he release all the information about the fire safety assessment so that an air of transparency surrounds all this? Secondly, will he ensure that the developer, Galliard Homes, steps up to the plate and does the remedial work that is necessary to bring down insurance costs and enable the residents to move on and get on with their lives?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting this issue, and I am also grateful for the meeting that he arranged with the representative of the leaseholders and the time that he gave for us to go through it. It is very useful to work through individual cases: although they are often the trickiest, the knottiest and the most challenging, it is important for us to understand the policy implications.
Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman—without going into the details of the individual property, which I should be happy to discuss with him separately—that in general we seek to be as transparent as we possibly can, hence the publication of some of the additional data today. We remain committed to making progress on both individual buildings and properties as a whole, and I hope that both the property and the developer that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted will make progress as soon as possible.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for his update, but it appears from his statement that there are still two tall buildings with ACM cladding  on which no work is going on and on which the Government have taken no action; I should be grateful if he could clarify that. Another issue that arises directly from his statement is that there are now 4,000 homes between 11 and 18 metres high whose residents will probably not be able to get a mortgage, insure their properties or sell them. Will he speed up the process of assessing those blocks so that the residents can feel safe, and if work is required on them will he ensure that it is carried out speedily, so that homes are made safe for the residents and for whoever they sell them to?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful for the question. On my hon. Friend’s first point, there are 11 buildings that have not started or finished their ACM remediation. One is not occupied. Of the remaining 10, work will commence on two in the next few weeks. Eight buildings will be remediated at a further date, and the remaining two have enforcement action being taken by the relevant authorities. Although I would like the number to go down to zero at the earliest possible opportunity, the situation is better than it was when we provided the update in October, and I expect the number to continue to move on a positive trajectory in the months and weeks ahead.
On my hon. Friend’s point about the 4,000 buildings that are being reviewed, we provided a further 1,000 potential leads to Homes England, which is leading on the cladding safety scheme, a number of months ago. A significant number were found to not require any remediation. Although I cannot comment on where the 4,000 will land, it is likely that a large number of them will not require remediation in the end, so I encourage residents not to worry about the number, but to see what comes out of the process.
Since December 2022, we have also taken action to make sure that we are starting to separate the need for remediation on properties from people’s ability to get on with their lives. The mortgage sector has been freed up to allow people to take mortgages, to remortgage and to move properties when big life events happen, and we hope that that will continue. I am monitoring, on a month-by-month basis, the large banks and building societies that are providing mortgages, and I can see that progress is being made.

Clive Efford: Master Gunner Place in my constituency is in need of remedial work, and the residents have been supplied with a letter of comfort from the developer to say that it will cover the costs. My constituent has written to me to say that his service charge has gone up by 360% in the last eight years. In the last year alone, it has gone up by 107%. He is now paying a £6,000-a-year service charge, even though Hamptons says that the average cost in London for a similar-sized property is £1,700. My constituent says that the additional costs are building safety-related. What does the Minister have to say about that? Can anything be done to stop developers recouping their costs in this way?

Lee Rowley: The first thing we need to do is bring greater transparency to service charges, which is what we are trying to do through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Assuming that progress is made in the other place, I hope that it will be on the statute book as quickly as possible, and then it will be clear exactly where such costs come from.
The second thing that is that our colleagues in the Financial Conduct Authority are bringing in the fair charging regime to make sure there are no inappropriate commissions and that, from an insurance perspective, exchanges are not under way with brokers, which will hopefully reduce the costs.
The third thing is the industry-led insurance scheme, which should hopefully bring down insurance costs for those who are most exposed. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need greater transparency and a greater understanding of where these costs are going, and we need to make sure that freeholders and managing agents are following the law, which is very clear about the kinds of costs that can and cannot be allocated. If there is something specific about the building he mentions that the Government can look at, I will happily talk to him separately.

Roger Gale: I thank the Opposition Front Bencher and the Minister for their participation in the statement.

Points of Order

Nick Smith: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order regarding last night’s debate on the motion to appoint an acting Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Following an intervention from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), I wish to express the Opposition’s concern. At the root of our concern is the lack of information on why No. 10 has not provided its seal of approval, when it has been cited that the House should lead on the role. We were told that the Prime Minister has had the nomination since January. As the Minister said, the process must be followed thoroughly and diligently, but some questions remain.
What processes have yet to be completed? Has a representative from No. 10 and the chair of the appointment committee met to discuss the delay? If so, what were their conclusions? Given that Parliament is the lead on this appointment, when will Members receive an update? As Members from across the House liaise with the ombudsman regarding constituency queries, this issue is important. Mr Deputy Speaker, could you please advise on whether you have received notice of an upcoming ministerial statement on this matter in the first week back after the Easter recess? That would be three months after No. 10 received the committee’s recommendation.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to reveal the identity of the person concerned? I notice that that did not happen yesterday, but it is well known who that person is and how well qualified he is for the post for which he has been recommended.

Roger Gale: I thank both hon. Gentlemen for their points of order, and I thank the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for giving notice of his. While the House Administration does take the lead—

Sammy Wilson: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I am on my feet.
While the House Administration does take the lead in the appointment process, it is not a matter for the Chair of the House. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the House authorities will be able to advise him on how to pursue the matter further.

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The law around marriage is part of my portfolio as a shadow Justice Minister, but I would like to seek your advice this afternoon—don’t worry, it is not marital advice that I require. Given my portfolio, would it be in order for me to invite you and perhaps Members from across the House to congratulate a very special couple, who will mark their 70th wedding anniversary tomorrow? They are particularly special, as they are my own mum and dad, Jean and John Cunningham, who were married all those years ago. I am extremely proud of them for reaching this remarkable milestone, and I am pleased that I have been able to share this news with the House.

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Roger Gale: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is outrageously out of order—[Laughter.] But I am equally sure that the whole House will want to associate themselves with his remarks about his mum and dad. I add my personal congratulations as well.

Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), made a statement announcing the laying of regulations for the implementation of the Windsor framework, which he stated was part of the Government’s commitment to safeguard the Union—although I think the two things are contradictory, given that the Windsor framework actually divides the Union. In his statement, he sought to justify the fact that Northern Ireland would be subject to some aspects of EU law, and he gave the example of its exclusion from the ban on live exports of animals, which I opposed in this House.
In his statement, the Minister claimed that the Government had offered to establish a sectoral roundtable to consider analysis of the proposed trade ban, but this invitation has not yet been taken up by any of those proposing the ban. I was the one who moved the motion in the House. The Minister in the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs had written to me to suggest having a roundtable with the Ulster Farmers Union, and he indicated that the Government had statistics that showed why Northern Ireland should be excluded from the ban. I wrote back to him on 30 January, asking for that information to facilitate the discussion at the roundtable.
Despite that, the Minister claimed that there was no response given, so he gave the impression that I was not prepared to challenge, debate or discuss the implementation  of EU law in Northern Ireland. I want to know how that can be corrected. I have corrected it on the record today, but I would like the Minister to correct the wrong information that he gave in his statement. It is quite clear that a letter went to the DEFRA Minister to which he has not responded, either by supplying information or by setting up a date for a meeting so that it can be made clear that there is no unwillingness to discuss the implementation of EU law in Northern Ireland with the relevant Minister.

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving at least some notice of his point of order, although I have to say that he has gone rather wider than the information with which I was originally provided. I hope that he informed the Minister that he intended to refer to him in the House.

Sammy Wilson: indicated assent.

Roger Gale: Thank you. That is not actually a matter for the Chair, but the right hon. Member has put his case on the record.

Bill Presented

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Requirement to Share Apparatus) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Emma Hardy presented a Bill to require providers of electronic communications networks to grant access to their apparatus to other such providers in certain circumstances; to prohibit the installation of new electronic communications apparatus where services can be provided by sharing apparatus; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 21 June and to be printed (Bill 196).

Disposal of Waste  (Advertising and Penalty Provision)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Paul Bristow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in Bill to make provision about the advertising of waste disposal services; to require local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices under section 34 of the Environment Act 1990 in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
We need a zero-tolerance approach to the criminal elements in our society who are turning our neighbourhoods and rural beauty spots into rubbish tips. No longer should our inner cities, suburbs, towns, villages, and rural lanes be seen as dumping grounds for illegal waste. We need to build on the work we have already done on tackling fly-tipping and putting the tippers out of business.
Shockingly, there are over 1 million incidences fly-tipping every year. Government and local councils spend hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money every year on cleaning up illegal waste sites across the country. It is a blight that not only tarnishes the beauty of our landscapes but inflicts profound harm on local environments and presents many risks to public health. Fly-tipping ranges from household items to industrial waste. It is discarded at best carelessly, but sometimes very deliberately in our forests, fields and riversides, and even in densely populated urban areas.
First and foremost, let us acknowledge the environmental and human toll of fly-tipping. Toxins and pollutants contaminate the environment, and wildlife suffers as animals are exposed to hazardous materials. Furthermore, fly-tipping poses a significant threat to public health. Dumped waste can contain harmful chemicals and often hazardous materials. These pollutants leach into the environment, contaminating the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil that sustains us. All of this carries the risk of illness, disease and infection, not just to humans but to domestic animals, pets and wildlife. This is a vicious cycle, and we need to break it.
Fly-tipping also blights neighbourhoods and the urban environment. It drives down property values, discourages investment, and creates an environment for crime. The unsightly mess left behind by fly-tippers creates a sense of neglect and decay, decreasing any sense of local pride and fostering a culture of apathy and resentment. I am sick to death of the mindless idiots who dump their rubbish on Peterborough’s streets. Fly-tipping is seen in both rural and urban areas, and it is simply not fair on hard-working people that their neighbourhoods are constantly the victim of this appalling behaviour. Moreover, the cost of cleaning up illegally dumped waste falls on those taxpayers, diverting resources that could be better spent on essential services and infrastructure.
What can we do about this pervasive problem? Of course, it begins with raising awareness and fostering a sense of accountability. We must educate our communities about the consequences of fly-tipping and instil a collective commitment to responsible waste management. People want to take pride in their areas, but as well as education there must be a much higher degree of deterrence. Local authorities must enforce the existing stringent laws against illegal dumping, impose severe penalties on perpetrators and deter future violations. Furthermore, we must invest  in accessible and affordable waste disposal services, providing viable alternatives to illegal dumping. At the same time, we must ensure that these services for disposing waste legally are properly regulated.
If I went on the internet, I would find hundreds of services that would take my rubbish away for me, but how do I know where it is actually going? Who is to say that the company I have paid to dispose of my waste will not just drive five minutes down the road and dump it in a field? The problem is that consumers do not always know who is qualified to do what, often through no fault of their own. They just want their waste taken away as soon as possible. This can lead to non-registered companies operating illegally and dumping household goods.
The Government’s own statistic is that 68% of all those advertising waste disposal are not registered and are therefore trading illegally in newspapers, online and in shop windows. Even political activists fall foul of this. I had a lot of fun when a large number of “Vote Labour” posters appeared on the private land of a business in Peterborough back in 2022, but it portrayed the serious point that this political activist was a victim of the criminality behind those adverts.
At this point, I would like to recognise Martin Montague and Jo Smith of ClearWaste, who are sitting with us in the Gallery today. Martin and Jo have been tireless advocates for action on fly-tipping for over five years, and the fly-tipping app ClearWaste has gathered significant attention and has become a top 10 app. If Members have not got it, take a look. It is one of the simple ways to ensure that you are using a licensed waste removal organisation, and you can also report fly-tipping on it.
My Bill will require the display of a valid waste transfer licence for all waste removal service advertisements up front. This would further significantly limit the avenues for illegal operators and would help people not to unwittingly use illegal operators and unintentionally contribute to the scourge of fly-tipping. The Government have taken significant action over the last few years. Maximum penalties have been increased, and a ban on DIY household waste charges means that households no longer have to pay to get rid of small-scale DIY waste at council recycling centres. Funding has been made available to local authorities for trial projects including CCTV, AI and education, but there is much more to be done. My Bill will help to ensure a zero-tolerance approach to fly-tipping.
The Government need local authorities to act. I would like to pay tribute to Councillor Ishfaq Hussain, Councillor Bryan Tyler, Councillor Chaz Fenner and Alex Rafiq, who have been amazing champions in Peterborough for strong action on fly-tipping in urban settings, and to Councillor Steve Allen and John Peach, who have done the same in rural areas.
On the issue of councils acting, the second aspect of this Bill would make it mandatory for local authorities to issue fines in cases where the evidence for fly-tipping is clear on both public and private land. There has been great progress in many areas, but it is still far too hit and miss. Scores of local authorities do not prosecute a single case a year. This is unacceptable and we can no longer tolerate town halls turning a blind eye. At the moment, a zero-tolerance approach in one area simply means that a large-scale criminal enterprise can move  its operations to a different area. Only a consistent national approach to enforcement will put fly-tippers out of business.
Winning the war on fly-tipping is a daunting challenge, but it is one we cannot afford to ignore. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and for Bury North (James Daly) for their support. This Bill would not be here right now without their unflinching support for these measures to tackle fly-tipping. Through this Bill we will close the loopholes that allow fly-tippers to advertise their criminality online, and we will force local authorities to fine perpetrators on both public and private land. To end this scourge, we need a zero-tolerance approach.
I have been fortunate enough to take two Bills through the House in my time as an MP. The Ballot Secrecy Bill, introduced by my noble Friend Lord Hayward, tackled family voting and those who would attempt to subvert our democratic processes. The Local Government (Pay Accountability) Bill tackles excessive town hall pay and the need for transparency. It has passed its Second Reading. Now, fly-tippers and criminals who dump their rubbish are firmly in my sights and I hope that the Government and all hon. Members will join us in the fight against fly-tipping.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Paul Bristow, Chris Clarkson, Sara Britcliffe, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Lee Anderson, James Daly, Alexander Stafford, Greg Smith, Jill Mortimer, Dr Caroline Johnson and Danny Kruger present the Bill.
Paul Bristow accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 May, and to be printed (Bill 197).

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee
[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Roger Gale: I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Chair”, “Madam Chairman”, “Madam Chair” and “Mr Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 1 - Power to regulate pedicabs

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(2A) When making or exercising its functions under pedicab regulations, Transport for London must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 7(1).”
This amendment requires Transport for London to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the making of pedicab regulations and exercising TfL’s functions under those regulations.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, page 1, line 9, after “must” insert
“carry out a public consultation including details of the proposed licensing framework and”.
This amendment would require Transport for London to carry out a public consultation before making pedicab regulations and would require that consultation to include details of the proposed licensing framework.
Amendment 2, page 1, line 10, leave out “whoever” and insert
“the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else”.
This amendment would ensure that the London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK would be consulted by Transport for London before TfL makes pedicab regulations.
Amendment 21, page 1, line 10, leave out “whoever” and insert
“local authorities, elected representatives, and whoever else”.
This amendment would require Transport for London to consult with local authorities and elected representatives as well as anyone else it considers appropriate before making pedicab regulations.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) Transport for London shall not make provision for regulating pedicabs in public places in Greater London until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under the provisions of section 7.”
This amendment would ensure that no regulation could be introduced by Transport for London until the Secretary of State for Transport had issued guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert
“or at a level that enables investment in pedicab infrastructure in Greater London”.
This amendment would allow pedicab licence fees to be set at a level that enables investment in pedicab infrastructure in Greater London.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 29, at end insert —
“(d) designate sites to be used as pedicab ranks.”
This amendment would allow Transport for London to use pedicab regulations to designate sites as pedicab ranks.
Amendment 12, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(d) make provision for the designation by traffic authorities of places where pedicabs may stand for hire.”
This amendment allows for the regulations to make provision for the designation by traffic authorities of pedicab stands.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations may only create offences relating to the use of a pedicab for any of the following purposes—
(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward;
(b) travelling to carry a passenger or passengers for hire or reward;
(c) returning from carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward; or
(d) plying for hire.”
This amendment ensures that offences created by pedicab regulations only apply when the pedicab is being used to carry passengers, when travelling to or from carrying passengers, or when plying for hire.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 20, at end insert
“, provided that equivalent conduct committed by the driver or rider of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil penalty.”
This amendment provides that civil penalties relating to pedicab drivers may only be used if equivalent conduct committed by a driver or rider of a motor vehicle would be subject to a civil penalty.
Amendment 15, page 3, line 22, leave out from “immobilisation” to end of line 24 and insert
“and seizure by a constable in uniform or by a civil enforcement officer of any pedicab that—
(a) is being used in a manner that is causing alarm or distress to members of the public, or
(b) is being driven in a manner that—
(i) contravenes section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861,
(ii) contravenes sections 29 to 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or
(iii) in the case of a mechanically propelled pedicab, would amount to a contravention of sections 29 to 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 if committed on a pedal cycle without mechanical propulsion, if the driver has been given warning on a prior occasion by a constable in uniform or a civil enforcement officer that the driver is using or driving the pedicab in a manner described in this paragraph or paragraph (a).”
This amendment ensures that the powers to immobilise and seize pedicabs are assigned to police constables in uniform or to traffic officers duly authorised by local authorities, and that they are proportionate to the powers to immobilise and seize motor vehicles in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
Clause 3 stand part.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 18, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out from “means” to the end of line 21 and insert
“a pedicab, as defined in section 1(2), which conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983;”.
This amendment defines “power-assisted pedicab” as a pedicab which conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983.
Clause 5 stand part.
Clause 6 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.
Amendment 19, page 4, line 32, leave out “may” and insert
“must, within six months of the passage of this Act,”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations within six months of the passage of this Act.
Amendment 10, page 4, line 32, leave out “the exercise of” and insert
“making pedicab regulations and exercising”.
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State’s guidance to TfL encompasses the making of pedicab regulations, as well as the exercise of its functions under those regulations.
Amendment 11, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
“(3A) In preparing guidance to be issued under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—
(a) the benefits to the environment, economic vitality and the health and quality of life that properly regulated pedicab services can provide;
(b) the safety of pedicab drivers and passengers;
(c) the need to minimise danger, disruption and disturbance to the public;
(d) the reasonableness of pedicab fares for the passengers, riders and operators of pedicabs;
(e) the designation of places where pedicabs may stand for hire;
(f) the need for licensing and other charges or requirements imposed on pedicab riders and operators, and the penalties for contraventions of offences created by pedicab regulations, to be reasonable and proportionate to the risks that pedicabs pose to their riders, passengers and the wider public.”
This amendment defines the objectives that the Secretary of State must have regard to when drawing up guidance on pedicab regulations, including to take into account the benefits that properly regulated pedicabs can provide.
Amendment 5, page 5, line 6, leave out “whoever” and insert
“the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK as well as anyone the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing guidance.
Amendment 7, page 5, line 6, leave out “whoever” and insert
“with local authorities, elected representatives, and whoever else”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and elected representatives as well as anyone the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing guidance.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 16, in clause 8, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“‘civil enforcement officer’ has the meaning given by section 76 of the Traffic Management Act 2004;”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 15.
Amendment 13, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
“‘traffic authority’ has the same meaning as in section 121A(1A) and (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 12.
Clause 8 stand part.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Government amendment 20.
Clause 11 stand part.
New clause 1—Protection of children and vulnerable adults—
“(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 177, in subsection (6), at end insert—
(g) the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024”
This new clause includes this Bill in the definition of “taxi and private hire vehicle legislation” for the purposes of section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. This permits the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities exercising licensing functions so as to protect children and vulnerable adults.
New clause 2—Licensing functions under pedicab regulations: protection of children and vulnerable adults—
“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to Transport for London under the provisions of section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 as to how its licensing functions under pedicab regulations may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over, from harm.
(2) The guidance must include a requirement for enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks to be a condition of licensing.
(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.”
This new clause is linked to NC1. It would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to TfL as to how its licensing functions under pedicab regulations may be exercised so as to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm, including compulsory DBS checks.
New clause 3—Conditions of licensing: Disclosure and Barring Service check—
“(1) Any provision related to conditions of licences under section (1)(a) may include a requirement for pedicab drivers or operators to have enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.
(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made until they are approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(4) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under any legislation passed before this Act.”
This new clause enables TfL to include DBS checks as a condition of licensing for pedicab drivers or operators in any licensing provision made by Transport for London. It also permits the Secretary of State to make regulations to make any consequential provision.

Christopher Chope: I begin by putting on record my appreciation for the positive way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has engaged with our deliberations on this Bill.
As discussed on Second Reading, the differences of opinion on the Bill centre around whether its consequence, deliberate or otherwise, will be to legislate pedicabs out of existence. Pedicabs are to London what gondolas are  to Venice. They are an essential part of the colour and vibrancy of our capital city. The Evening Standard recently warned of the damage being done to London’s nightlife and the night-time economy, and pedicabs are an essential part of that economy. I am sure we would not want to do anything to further undermine the viability of that night-time economy.
Is this Bill the equivalent of a morphine syringe driver to kill off pedicabs, or is it a necessary protector of responsible pedicab operators? Both I and, I think, the Minister want it to be the latter, and so does Cycling UK, which has a membership of some 70,000 cyclists—it is quite a large organisation—as well as the London Pedicab Operators Association.
I expressed my concern about over-regulation on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who asked the Minister for an assurance that
“when this regulation comes into force, it will be light touch and not onerous, so that we do not kill this young and perfectly acceptable industry?”
And the Minister replied:
“The answer is yes and yes.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 375.]
That clear and unambiguous response is extremely welcome.
It is important that we are able to deliver on that commitment. The question often arises of whether we can trust Transport for London. Those of us who live in London during the week, and others who are resident in London throughout the year, are quite concerned about Transport for London’s failure to listen on issues such as the ultra low emission zone extension and the proliferation of 20 mph zones.
Transport for London produced an outline of how it will use the process of regulation, which it will be given under this Bill, in January 2022, and it was updated in February 2024. The Minister made arrangements for the new draft to be circulated to all interested Members. Unfortunately, and I know it was not his fault, the draft was circulated not with his letter but late on Thursday, about half an hour after the House had risen and the deadline for tabling amendments had passed. My amendments therefore take no account of that document. Had I seen it before the deadline, I might well have tabled additional amendments.

Nickie Aiken: I accept my hon. Friend’s point that there was an issue with the TfL regulations not being provided until Thursday. He may recall that he was involved in meetings with me and TfL on my private Member’s Bill back in 2021-22, when my office emailed him the same draft regulations on 20 January 2022. He has had a couple of years to read those regulations, which I do not believe have been changed.

Christopher Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the draft regulations have been changed to take into account the discussions on the Bill in the other place. As she confirms, a document existed in 2022 yet, when I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister asking for the draft regulations to be made available, I was told that they were not available. It is important that draft regulations are shared with all legislators and are not the subject of private meetings.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) is as eager as anybody to ensure that Transport for London’s intentions are explored so that we can be sure that it genuinely wants to retain the benefits of having a lively and vibrant pedicab industry in London. I will address the content we have now seen in the potential licensing framework for pedicabs in London, because I do not think it will excite much support from people who are keen to defend the interests of genuine pedicab operators.
There is an issue with the ability of pedicabs to lawfully ply for hire in London. When people think of pedicabs, they think of going up to the driver of a stationary pedicab on the side of a London street and asking for a ride. I am not aware of any statement from the Government suggesting that they believe that pedicabs should not be lawfully available to ply for hire yet, when one looks at the draft regulations, one can see that Transport for London is raising the question of whether or not pedicabs should continue to be able to lawfully ply for hire.
I come to another area of concern. Currently, there is no regulation of fares for private hire vehicles, and for good reason. As the document sets out, we do not have to regulate the fares of private hire vehicles because they are subject to a lot of competition. Yet the draft regulations suggest that TfL would wish to regulate the fares of pedicabs, even when they are being used, in essence, for private hire.

Matt Rodda: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in a previous debate on the Bill a great deal of concern was raised by a number of hon. Members from across the House about the conduct of some pedicab drivers and the level of fees sometimes levied on passengers, some of whom were tourists who were unaware of the nature of the business they were getting into? I believe the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) raised that issue in the previous debate.

Christopher Chope: I accept that, but those concerns relate to the use of pedicabs when they are plying for hire, and people then getting into them and being—to put it colloquially—“ripped off.” There should be regulation of fares in those circumstances, but where the pedicab is a private hire vehicle—where an agreement has been made prior to its hire—the terms and conditions will be a contractual arrangement between the hirer and the pedicab operator. That is exactly equivalent to what happens in the private vehicle hire sector at the moment, where there is no regulation of the fare. I do not understand why TfL is seeking powers to regulate the pedicab fare even when that is a private hire arrangement, rather than the subject of a hire arrangement made on the street.
Page 5 of the potential licensing framework for pedicabs in London states, “TfL would seek to introduce controls on fares for pedicabs, including fares for pre-booked journeys.” That is completely inconsistent with the point TfL makes in the previous paragraph, which says, “TfL does not regulate fares for private hire vehicles. As private hire vehicles are pre-booked, passengers are in a position to make a consumer choice before hiring the vehicle. Private hire vehicle fares are thus set by the  operators in a competitive market, which allows price to be one of the factors passengers take into account when choosing which operator to book with.” So why is TfL seeking to introduce controls on fares for pre-booked journeys?
The next issue of concern, which has not been resolved, is whether pedicabs should be able to charge per passenger. Currently, taxis cannot charge per passenger; they charge per journey. One can understand why, because the taxi is licensed for a certain number of seats—for example, five—and the number of passengers does not make much difference to the speed of the vehicle. The situation for pedicabs is significantly different, because taking four passengers in a pedicab requires a lot more cycling effort from one person than one passenger does. So surely it is reasonable that pedicabs should be able to charge per passenger, rather than just per journey irrespective of how many passengers are there.
Alarmingly, the potential licensing framework makes reference to the possibility that TfL might require pedicab operators to accept any fare that was offered. So if a group of people got together and said, “You’ve got four seats in your pedicab, we wish to take all four of them and we require you to take us to Leicester Square”, the pedicab driver would be required to accept those four people, who might be heavy. That would be the case despite his wish to have only one or two people in his pedicab because he was not sufficiently fit to transport all four people in his pedicab. Those are further concerns I have about what is contained in these draft regulations.
The cycling fraternity are very worried about pedicabs being legislated out of existence, which is why they have argued that the pedicab regime should be national, rather than limited to London, and that it should not be an extension of the rules relating to taxis and private hire vehicles. I tabled a question to the Minister following his helpful intervention on Second Reading, when he talked about the issue of licensing authorities across the rest of the country and referred to paragraph 8.3 of his Department’s publication “Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing best practice guidance for licensing authorities in England”, which was updated on 17 November. In that update, the Department advised that licensing authorities “should make appropriate adjustments” to take into account the demand for pedicab services in their area.
During the earlier debates, we had heard that some such areas include Oxford, Salisbury, Bristol and Cambridge. So I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State asking
“what information his Department holds on (a) the number of pedicabs outside Greater London that are licensed as (i) taxis and (ii) private hire vehicles and (b) the number and proportion of those pedicabs that are in (A) Oxford, (B) Salisbury, (C) Bristol and (D) Cambridge; and if he will make an assessment of the potential impact on the number of licensed pedicabs of paragraph 8.3 of his Department’s guidance entitled Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing best practice guidance for licensing authorities in England”.
The answer I received from the Minister on 25 March rather ducked the question:
“Outside London pedicabs can be licensed as taxis. Pedicabs cannot be licensed as a private hire vehicle as legislation defines a private hire vehicle as a motor vehicle. The Department for Transport issues guidance on licensing taxis and private hire vehicles to authorities who should consider the recommendations made and their obligation under the Regulators’ Code to carry  out their activities in a way that supports those they regulate to comply and grow. The Best Practice Guidance…sets out that where there is local interest….licensing authorities should make appropriate adjustments…Subject to the legal requirements, it is for licensing authorities to consider”.
What the Minister did not say was what impact, if any, the change in the best practice guidance that he issued has had on pedicab operators or on people being able to start pedicab operations outside London. The answer, as far as one can gather, is that outside London there are no licensed pedicab operations, because, despite the Government’s apparent best intentions, those who wish to operate pedicabs outside London using the taxi and private hire vehicle regulations are unable to get their operations off the ground. That is largely because of the regulatory burdens and the costs associated with insurance, apart from anything else.
There are those who believe, as I do, that pedicabs are a highly environmentally advantageous means of transport: the pedicab driver is taking good exercise in cycling his pedicab and it is not causing any emissions. In addition, pedicabs enable people to get from one part of London to another and to have an enjoyable experience. In the same way that not many people in Venice use gondolas as a means of getting from A to B quickly, pedicabs are not used as an alternative to the bus or the underground. They are there for a bit of fun and recreation. Why would this Conservative Government want to legislate them out of existence? I do not think they want to do that, which is why I have proposed a series of amendments designed to tighten up the pedicab regime.
My first amendment
“requires Transport for London to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the making of pedicab regulations and exercising TfL’s functions under those regulations.”
My point is that the making of the regulations is what is important rather than the exercising of the functions under them, so the amendment requires Transport for London to have regard to that. That links to the requirement in amendment 19 to ensure that the Government produce the guidance within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Without that provision we could have a situation where the Government are required by law to produce regulations, but there is no time limit on that.
As an example of how time lapses, I remember that just over five years ago, on a Friday in this Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) brought forward a Bill to control bad behaviour by rogue parking operators, who can cause abuse at the behest of transport organisations, access driver and vehicle details, and impose severe penalties, including enormous fines, on alleged miscreants who have parked on private property. The Government assured us that a code of practice would be drawn up, and I put forward an amendment specifying the period within which that should be done. I was assured by the then Minister—none other than the person who is now our Prime Minister—that my amendment was unnecessary, but five years later that code of practice has still not been produced, to the frustration of motorists up and down the country. That is why we need to include an amendment that specifies the timescale within which the Government must produce their guidance.
Amendment 19 suggests a timescale of six months. Transport for London could introduce its regulations thereafter, having taken into account the Government guidance. Clause 7 is purely permissive: it permits, not requires, the Government to issue guidance to Transport for London. It is essential that the Government issue guidance that ensures Transport for London realises it will not be allowed to prevent pedicabs plying for hire in London; it will not be able to require pedicab operators to put a maximum of four heavy people in their cab and not get any extra fee for transporting them; and it will not be able to require other potentially damaging provisions in the draft regulations.
My next amendments relate to consultation. Amendment 1
“would require Transport for London to carry out a public consultation… to include details of the proposed licensing framework.”
It is clear from the document that has been produced that Transport for London is intent on doing that, so I will not press that amendment. However, we need to be more specific about the people with whom the consultation should be carried out, so amendment 2 says that the consultation must include
“the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else”.
Currently, the Bill says:
“Before making pedicab regulations, Transport for London must consult whoever it considers appropriate.”
Why is that so vague? It needs to be much more specific. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has tabled an amendment that deals with the same concerns. She seeks to spell it out in a slightly different way, but her amendment 21 reflects our joint concern.
Amendment 4 provides that
“Transport for London shall not make provision for regulating pedicabs in public places in Greater London until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under the provisions of section 7.”
As I have said, if we have a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue that guidance within six months, that point is covered off as well.
The London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK have raised the issue of where pedicabs will be able to stand. We already have taxi ranks. If we are to have a properly functioning pedicab regime in central London, there needs to be some provision for the designation of places where pedicabs may stand for hire. Amendment 12 requires that the regulations
“make provision for the designation by traffic authorities”
of pedicab stands. When one walks around London these days, one often finds the pavements littered with bikes, many of which have fallen over and some of which are still on their stands. They obstruct the pavements and there does not seem to be any effective regulation of them. It would be ironic if Transport for London were to single out pedicab operators as not being able to have anywhere to put their pedicab and rest while plying for hire, while the users of what I still call Boris bikes seem to be able to dump their bikes wherever it suits them in London, causing obstruction to the highway and pavement.
Amendment 17 would ensure that the offences created by the pedicab regulations apply only when the pedicab is being used to carry passengers, when travelling to or  from carrying passengers, or when plying for hire. Many pedicabs are used for the transport of goods around London, which is obviously an environmentally friendly means of doing so. Concern has been expressed that if the regulations are designed only to protect passengers and their safety and security, there could be a situation that we do not want to see where the pedicab driver who is just carrying goods finds himself subject to the same potential offences as those carrying passengers.

Nickie Aiken: It is important to note that Pedal Me, an organisation that carries out freight deliveries via pedicabs, has always been supportive of the Bill, because it firmly believes that there should be regulations and that the whole industry should be properly regulated. It already ensures that its drivers are properly checked and safe, and that its vehicles undergo regular, proper security and safety checks. It is an important point to make that parts of the industry—particularly those that carry freight—are supportive of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which is similar to one made by the London Pedicab Operators Association, which has been campaigning for 20-plus years to have proper regulation of pedicabs so that its business can be carried out in a lawful and responsible way and not be plagued by rogue operators. It is good to hear that the organisation to which she referred is of a like mind. Indeed, I think nobody across the House is against the idea of having some regulation of pedicabs. The difference is in whether we want to introduce safeguards that will prevent those regulations from being so stringent that they regulate pedicabs out of existence.
When my hon. Friend and I had the discussion to which she referred earlier, she was unfortunately unable to commit—in what was her Bill at that stage—to including provisions that would have set that out in clear language. I suspect that was because, as we know, one of the organisations that would like to legislate pedicabs out of existence is the London Taxi Drivers Association. That is perfectly understandable—it is much easier for its drivers if they have fewer competitors on the streets—but we owe it to the people who have transformed transport for people in the centre of London, particularly in the late evenings and past midnight, and have introduced this alternative: namely, the provision of pedicabs.
Amendment 15 would ensure
“that the powers to immobilise and seize pedicabs are assigned to police constables in uniform or to traffic officers duly authorised by local authorities, and that they are proportionate to the powers to immobilise and seize motor vehicles in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.”
I hope that that is a no-brainer and that, in responding, the Minister will be able to assure us that exactly that will happen in practice. At the moment, it is not clear in the regulations that Transport for London has that in mind. It seems to be keen on the fixed penalty notice regime, with all the potential injustice that flows from that.
Amendment 18 is on how we define a pedicab. The amendment would ensure that power-assisted pedicabs—pedicabs not just driven by human effort but assisted with a battery—are defined as a pedicab that conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983,  thereby securing some consistency across the regime. As you will know, Sir Roger, a power-assisted pedal cycle under those regulations is not allowed to go more than 15.5 mph, although apparently quite a lot of them do. I have seen cyclists going a lot faster than 15.5 mph, but Transport for London has it in mind in the draft regulations to require pedicab operators to install equipment—in effect a speed limiter—that would prevent the pedicabs from going faster than 15.5 mph. That must reinforce the case for saying that electrically assisted pedicabs should be regarded as electrically assisted cycles rather than as other sorts of powered vehicles. There is a clear distinction in law between vehicles subject to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations and those that are not, which could be regarded as ordinary motor vehicles.
Whether we define a pedicab as a cycle or as a motor vehicle will have significant implications in third-party liability insurance. One of the biggest constraints on pedicab operators is the cost of insurance. The regulations will rightly require insurance, but it is important that they should be drafted in such a way as to make it easier for the costs of that insurance to be less penal than they might otherwise be if pedicabs were defined as equivalent to an ordinary vehicle.
I have referred to amendment 19, and amendment 3 offers a less preferable alternative.
Amendment 10 would clarify that which is not clear in clause 7: that the Secretary of State’s guidance to Transport for London should encompass the making of the regulations as well as the exercise of the functions under those regulations. You will appreciate the difference between those two propositions, Sir Roger. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can provide us with some reassurance in relation to that guidance.
Amendment 11 goes back to the objectives of this Bill. Chris Smallwood, the spokesman for and on behalf of the London Pedicab Operators Association, has written to me to express his support for my amendments, and he has suggested a number himself. He has said that he has had introductory meetings with officials from TfL. He names them, but I will not repeat their names in the House. He says:
“A concern was that when questioned about the objectives that TfL’s regulations are seeking to achieve, they”—
those officials—
“talked only about the safety of pedicab drivers and other road users, which of course is a very important objective, and is reflected in our proposed amendment on the objectives for the Regulations. However, they seemed reluctant to acknowledge that a well-regulated pedicab sector could provide health, environmental and other benefits, and that securing those benefits should also be an objective.”
He went on to say:
“It’s not essential that this should be written into the Bill itself, if the Government states that these objectives be written into their guidance to TfL.”
I hope that, in his response, the Minister will be able to assure us that those objectives will be written into the guidance to Transport for London, because it appears from what is being said by TfL officials, representatives from Cycling UK and the London Pedicab Operators Association that that is not common ground at the moment, which it should be. I hope that my amendment 11,  which sets out the issues to which the Secretary of State must have regard when preparing the guidance, is both helpful and constructive.
Amendment 5 repeats the point made earlier about the need to consult with the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else is thought appropriate. Amendment 16, which is linked with amendment 15, would define a “civil enforcement officer” as having the same meaning as is given in section 76 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Amendment 13 would insert a provision that a “traffic authority” has the same meaning as in section 121A(1A) and (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Let me turn now to the new clauses and amendments put forward by other Members—I look forward to hearing their contributions. I fear, however, that the collective consequence of those amendments and new clauses would be to make it even easier for pedicabs to be legislated out of existence, rather than facilitating a positive regime, which is what I want, where pedicabs are welcomed, encouraged and enabled to contribute to the life of London. At the same time, the Conservatives would be seen to be supporting the hard-working small businesses that are involved in this perfectly legitimate activity.
I say good luck to all those who wish to promote the cause of pedicabs not just in London, but across the country. Hopefully, in due course, the Government will ensure that pedicabs become a much more widespread means of transport in places where they are not currently used, despite the efforts of a few entrepreneurs, I hope the Government will introduce appropriate regulations so that it will be not just London but the United Kingdom that is prided across the world as having this very important form of transport.
Mr Evans, may I say what a pleasure it is to be speaking with you in the Chair? However, having said that, I am very grateful to Sir Roger for not having interrupted me once during the time that I have been speaking. I hope that that is an indication of the genuine good will that exists across the House about the importance of this issue and how we need to get to grips with it and resolve it amicably.
This issue has been going on for more than 20 years. As I mentioned on Second Reading, it could have been dealt with in the 2005 private legislation, which was brought forward by London authorities. It has never been implemented because there has always been a conflict between those in London who want to legislate pedicabs out of existence and those who wish to have a properly licensed regime with good, effective and proportionate regulation. On that basis, I commend my amendments to the Committee.

Nigel Evans: If no one else wishes to speak, we will come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.

Simon Lightwood: It is a pleasure to speak in my inaugural Committee of the whole House on behalf of the official Opposition. As we set out on Second Reading, Labour is clear that the Bill can help to sustain a thriving London pedicab industry that is also safe and trusted by its customers, and we support its progress. However, there are two areas in which Labour believes that the Bill can be  improved: pedicab infrastructure, and the crucial safeguard of requiring enhanced disclosure and barring service checks for pedicab drivers.
Amendment 8, which was tabled in my name and those of my Front-Bench colleagues, would enable Transport for London to use pedicab licence fees for investment in pedicab infrastructure in London. Alongside passenger safety and unregulated fare charging, one of the biggest issues presented by unregulated pedicabs is the nuisance of operators blocking pavements and roads as they ply for trade. The Heart of London Business Alliance, which represents over 600 businesses across London’s west end, is clear that pedicabs frequently block pavements and roads outside many of its members’ premises. That can cause chaos at busy periods, such as when many hundreds of people are filing out into the street after a west end show.
The amendment would enable Transport for London to use fees levied from pedicab licences to invest in infrastructure that supports the industry. That infrastructure could include designated pedicab ranks in certain areas, designed to relieve the nuisance of blocked pavements by giving operators a specific area in which to pick up customers. TfL has already set out in its potential licensing framework that it will consult stakeholders on the provision of pedicab stands. I hope that the Heart of London Business Alliance, along with other associations and bodies, including the London Pedicab Operators Association, can feed into those discussions.

Florence Eshalomi: My hon. Friend is making a good closing speech on why regulation is important. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and I share the view that the Bill strikes the right balance between allowing a sustainable and supported pedicab industry to develop, and giving Transport for London the powers that it needs to ensure that the sector runs safely. Does he agree?

Simon Lightwood: I agree, but there could be enhanced DBS checks, which our new clause 3 would provide for.
As I have said, TfL has already set out in its potential licensing framework that it will consult stakeholders, and I hope that that will include the London Pedicab Operators Association. Of course, although it is vital that fees are set at a level that enables investment, they must remain proportionate. We are trying to provide for a prosperous pedicab industry, after all, so we must ensure that fees are not prohibitive. Clause 2(4) already provides for TfL to set fees at a level that enables the recovery of costs incurred for administering the licensing scheme. Licensing fees being set on a cost recovery basis is fair and proportionate. Amendment 8 to clause 2(4) would simply grant TfL a degree of flexibility while acknowledging the benefits that investment in pedicabs infrastructure can have.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech clearly setting out the importance of having the right balance. Does he agree that, from this work in London, lessons could be learned for other towns and cities around the country, and that encouraging the pedicab industry and other delivery by bicycle in a sensitive way around the country could generate a great number of local jobs and remove fumes and other menaces from the public realm?

Simon Lightwood: My hon. Friend makes a very important point; hopefully, during TfL’s consultation, it will engage with those other organisations to ensure maximum benefit. Labour’s priority, after all, is to grant TfL the flexibility it needs to implement a regulatory regime that promotes safety while also allowing the regulated pedicab industry in London to flourish. Naturally, infrastructure such as pedicab stands would be competing against many different demands for the use of central London’s kerbsides, and it will remain TfL’s responsibility to work with local authorities on where infrastructure can be viably located.
Some hon. Members may not agree that this Bill is an appropriate place to discuss pedicab infrastructure. Labour believes that on the contrary, the conduct of pedicab drivers and the safety of the public are undeniably linked to TfL’s ability to fund and make provision for infrastructure that supports a regulated pedicab industry. Amendment 8 clarifies one potential revenue stream for the provision of that infrastructure, and I hope the Government will consider its merits carefully.
I now turn to new clauses 1 to 3, which stand in my name and those of my Front-Bench colleagues. All three new clauses concern the safety of children and vulnerable adults using pedicabs. As we heard on Second Reading, and as has been reported widely in the media and by numerous stakeholders, misconduct by pedicab operators arguably provides the strongest case for the desperate need to regulate the industry. Blocking streets and pavements, reckless driving and noise nuisance are all important areas that regulation will address, but they pale in comparison with the vital responsibility we have to ensure that TfL has the power to ensure public safety effectively. As TfL’s proposed licensing framework sets out, that emphasis on safety will be its guiding principle for pedicab regulations.
At the front and centre are eligibility requirements for operators and drivers. TfL has set out a raft of proposed licensing requirements, including alignment of visa status requirements with taxi and private hire licensing, English proficiency, and highway code and hazard perception awareness. That is of course welcome, but TfL is also clear that it would like to see compulsory enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for pedicab drivers, again in line with the taxi and private hire requirements. That should be a vital component of ensuring the safety of pedicab customers, but TfL has explicitly stated on page 5 of its draft licensing framework that it would require changes in legislation, because while clause 2(6)(a) of the Bill empowers TfL to regulate licensing eligibility, enhanced DBS checks may not form part of those requirements if TfL does not have the right powers. Those difficulties were raised in the other place and were acknowledged by the Lords Minister himself.
The draft licensing framework also makes a clear distinction between basic and enhanced DBS checks, and explicitly states that enhanced DBS checks for pedicab drivers would be TfL’s preference. I say for the benefit of colleagues that an enhanced DBS check may show information held by local police forces on individuals. That intelligence may prove vital when deciding whether to award a licence to a pedicab driver, and it is absolutely right that TfL should be able to require enhanced checks. While enhanced DBS checks are not a panacea, they are clearly an important component of thorough  eligibility requirements. Labour recognises the need to balance getting the Bill swiftly on to the statute books with the need to ensure that it conveys sufficient powers to TfL to truly make pedicabs a trusted and safe mode of transport in London. If TfL does not have the right powers to vet pedicab drivers through enhanced DBS checks, that will threaten its ability to truly implement a watershed regulatory framework.
Labour’s new clause 1 would add this Bill, upon Royal Assent, to the list of existing taxi and private hire vehicle legislation under section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. As colleagues may be aware, section 177 empowers the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on how licensing authorities can ensure the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. Including pedicabs in the list of licensed activities covered by the statutory guidance would be a crucial step towards a safer pedicab industry.
Labour’s new clause 2 is designed to build on new clause 1 by turning the Secretary of State’s power to issue statutory guidance to TfL into a duty. Crucially, under subsection (2), this guidance would also include a requirement for enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks to be a condition of a licence. In concert with new clause 1, this new clause would equip TfL with the powers it needs to properly regulate in the name of safety by including enhanced DBS checks as a baseline standard for driver eligibility.
Finally, Labour’s new clause 3 would insert into the Bill the power for TfL to make enhanced DBS checks as a condition of a licence to operate a pedicab, and provides for the Secretary of State to amend the relevant secondary legislation to facilitate this. It is important to emphasise once again that these are powers that Transport for London has explicitly said it wants to use.
If we are to truly place safety at the heart of these regulations, TfL must have the power to mandate an enhanced DBS check for all pedicab drivers, and the three new clauses provide a way to achieve that. However, in the spirit of getting the Bill on to the statute book as urgently as possible, if it is clear that these amendments do not have the support of the House, I am content to not push them to a vote.

Guy Opperman: I wish to address all the amendments that have been put down by all colleagues. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) representing the Liberal Democrats is not present, but I will deal with her amendments 21, 6 and 7 very briefly. On her amendment 21, the consultation will happen as she seeks. On her amendment 6, clause 2(7) addresses her concerns on that. On her amendment 7, I believe that that is covered by clause 7(6).
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) has put forward a number of amendments. He and I have discussed this on a previous occasion and prior to today, and I will address a couple of his key points. They were made in the best possible way and in the right spirit, being conscious of what was discussed in the other place. On his new clause 1, we believe it is not necessary given that clause 7(2) already achieves the policy intention by specifying that the Secretary of  State’s guidance may include guidance about TfL’s functions. The key point is that we believe clause 7(2) addresses the overarching themes.
The crucial point the hon. Member wants to make is about DBS checks, and I acknowledge that point. Clearly, there are the primary checks we have repeatedly discussed in the past, but I am strongly instructed that the appropriate way to deal with these matters is to make amendments to the exceptions through the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, under the negative procedure, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, under the affirmative procedure.
I can tell the Committee that the Home Office and, in particular, the Ministry of Justice are currently considering a range of proposals for changes to such eligibility, and we are looking to bring forward a consolidated package of changes in due course. I am not able to do that at this stage, and I do not feel that this Bill is the right venue to do it. However, the hon. Member’s point is well noted, has been taken on board and is very much live in the Ministry of Justice’s considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), in his typical way, made a heartfelt speech setting out his genuine concerns and his genuine desire to ensure that there is a pedicab business on an ongoing basis post regulation. I welcome his concern on that point, and as a strong Conservative I want to see exactly the same as him. I put that on record, and I make it very clear that we want a thousand flowers to bloom and we want pedicabs to continue on a long-term basis.
I know there is a desire to trade who said what over the last few years, but I want briefly to put on record some of the comments from some of the key organisations engaged here. Clearly, the London Pedicab Operators Association has made a variety of comments down the years. On 7 November 2023 one of the spokesmen, Mr Schroder, stated:
“It’s handy for us to have legislation and rules and regulations for the operators which includes insurance…we’ve been competing against operators who don’t follow any rules, who can do what they want, and that makes it difficult… It’s a shame that they don’t involve the industry in making the decisions, because then it’s take it or leave it.”
Mention was made of Mr Smallwood, who stated in August 2022 that he was “optimistic” because probably for the first time, all parties have a determination to finally establish a bespoke regulatory regime for pedicabs that extends throughout the country. He said this was a “positive and exciting” opportunity, and perhaps a singular chance in the foreseeable future to resolve this long-standing issue. He added—I think this is relevant to consideration of whether we are creating a bespoke arrangement to allow an organisation to continue in a safely regulated way—that regulations across Europe and the USA are simple, straightforward and effective. Clearly it is possible to regulate pedicabs and at the same time to allow the industry to flourish.

Matt Rodda: Will the Minister reflect on the benefits of this regulatory approach being brought forward to look at other comparable new and emerging forms of transport, particularly electric bikes and scooters? There is a great deal of concern among my constituents and  others that we need a sensible approach to these new vehicles that encourages the use of more modest and environmentally friendly transport, but that also keeps them off pavements and avoids people being scared to walk down the street. Will he commit to looking into that important matter as well?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go somewhat beyond the Bill, and I will try to address that issue in a couple of ways. Clearly, the Department for Transport must look at all types of vehicles, in whatever shape or form, that utilise the roads, including cycles and various types of scooter and the like. It is complex legislation, as we are showing by dealing just with the simple issue of pedicabs, but it is unquestionably the case—I speak as the Minister who answers for accessibility issues—that this cannot be the long-term situation. I accept that a research project is ongoing in respect of these alternative vehicles, but that cannot be the case long term.
It is my humble opinion that we have an unregulated system where vehicles can be deposited on the pavement, and those who have accessibility issues, or who are blind or have other disabilities, are unquestionably compromised by that. There must be regulation going forward. I am keen to see that but again—this slightly touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—there has to be a way to get the right form of regulation to allow this to go ahead. To be fair to successive Mayors of London, having what are sometimes called Boris bikes, and sometimes called other types of bikes, with a docking station, has been exceptionally successful at getting people out of a bus or car, and it is the right thing to do. I am utterly on board with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is for all parties to look at their transport manifestos, but it would unquestionably be my view, as a very junior and humble Minister, that we must consider that issue.
Ben Knowles of Pedal Me stated that pedicabs
“have been undermined by the business models under which they’re run and by the lack of regulation… So I’m really excited to see this regulation coming in because I think it might help boost standards across the industry and turn it into the reputable, useful service it always should have been.”
To assist my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and all colleagues, I asked TfL to update, improve and enhance its draft regulations, and I wish to try to address that briefly. I do not think I have ever come across a Bill that is so brief but has such detailed draft regulations for pre-scrutiny. I have done this job for 14 years, and I have never seen such copious detail.

Nickie Aiken: My hon. Friend is making an important point. I have not always seen eye to eye with the current Mayor, but on the regulation of pedicabs we are absolutely at one. I know from his transport strategy that he wants to encourage more cycling and more green transport, which pedicabs are. The last thing the Mayor of London wants to do is eradicate pedicabs, and the fact that these draft guidelines have been put together and that the Mayor has worked closely with the Department for Transport make it clear that they want this regime to work.

Guy Opperman: May I put on record my agreement with my hon. Friend? The Department for Transport and TfL have worked closely to make progress. There is a desperate desire to get regulation ongoing, so that  pedicabs can go forward as a properly regulated business. To be fair, TfL has put that in writing, and I briefly mention the comments at paragraph 2, which states
“we recognise the need for regulations to not only improve safety but to minimise the other associated negative impacts pedicabs have on London, from congestion on streets and pavements, to loud music causing public nuisance or disproportionate fares undermining London’s reputation as a global tourist hub. Once this behaviour is effectively managed through a regulatory regime however, we believe there are a number of benefits pedicabs may have, especially in central areas, where these services could offer a green and space efficient option.”
I do not think TfL could have been any more clearer about its intent to have a regulatory regime, but also a safe regime.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for making those points, and I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). It is fitting, as we are coming to the last few debates in the Chamber before Easter, that the Bill has been resurrected perhaps five times. We are nearly there. On what the Minister has just outlined, does he agree that there is cross-party support for seeing a pedicabs industry that works, that supports customers and drivers, and that can flourish? Unfortunately, the current situation is causing tensions, hence why we need this legislation passed quickly.

Guy Opperman: It is unquestionable that this Bill has cross-party support. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who has understandable concerns, is supportive of light-touch regulation on an ongoing basis.
May I just address a couple of extra points? It is on the record that the Bill does not require a statement under section 13C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is good news.
I will be moving my amendment 20. As for my hon. Friend’s amendments, I regret that I will disappoint him, as I do not agree with them, but I will deal with them briefly. Amendment 9 is covered by clause 7(5). Amendment 1 is covered by clause 1(3), which requires a statutory public consultation. We have the updated and published February 2024 guidance. On amendment 2, those bodies will be consulted, and no reasonable consultation could possibly go ahead without them being involved. Amendment 4 is dealt with by clause 7. Amendment 12 is the same issue as raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
On amendment 17, the Bill is unquestionably for pedicabs transporting passengers. Amendment 14 is dealt with by clause 3(5). Amendment 15 talks about what would happen in practice, but it is dealt with by clause 3(6). Amendment 18 is dealt with by clause 1(2), which defines pedicabs as a pedal cycle or power-assisted pedal cycle. The term “power-assisted” captures the point raised by the amendment, and is broader than “electrically assisted”. Amendments 3 and 19 have been dealt with previously, but clearly the Secretary of State must have the power to assess this process once the Bill has progressed. Amendment 10 is about guidance not circumventing consultation and regulation. Amendment 11 is dealt with by clause 7(1).

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister assure me that under no circumstances will the Government allow Transport for London to prevent pedicabs from being able to ply for hire?

Guy Opperman: With great respect, this matter should be dealt with through the upcoming consultation. TfL could not be any clearer than the introduction to said consultation, where it states that it wishes pedicabs to continue. It is unquestionably the case that they will have to manage the number of pedicabs there are, but, with great respect, that is dealt with in both the introduction and the subsequent matters. After all, that is the point of a consultation. There should be an open consultation discussing the matter with all the particular individuals relevant to it.
In those circumstances and, with due respect, I invite all colleagues not to press their amendments, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Christopher Chope: I thank the Minister and everybody who has participated in the debate. On the last point about plying for hire, it seems as though Transport for London is actively contemplating a situation in which no pedicabs will be able to ply for hire. Page 8 of the consultation states, “If, following consultation, pedicabs are allowed to continue to ply for hire”. That envisages a situation in which they might not be allowed to ply for hire. Unless they can ply for hire, that is the end of pedicabs as we know them.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating on this matter. I have seen over the years in London how we had a Greater London Council that interfered and acted against the wishes of the people. We now see Transport for London alienating a lot of people over the ultra low emission zone extension and its proliferation of 20 mph limits. I suppose we must trust Transport for London to ensure that it actually does what it says it will do, but I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that he and I are ad idem in our determination to ensure that there is a vibrant, lively and continuing pedicab industry in London. In those circumstances, I will withdraw my amendments because there is no need to take the matter any further, but I look forward to the consultations that will flow on those regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Evans: Just for the record, Sir Roger told me that you were gloriously within order throughout speaking to the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Short title

Amendment made: 20, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Guy Opperman.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Third Reading

Guy Opperman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to place on the record my gratitude to colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has fought nobly to bring forward this vital legislation to the good burghers of London on an ongoing basis, through thick and thin, through private Member’s Bill, through fair winds and foul. She has done a phenomenal job.
It is rightly said that this is a cross-party Bill. I thank Transport for London for its work with the Department for Transport and my officials, who have done a fantastic job to take it forward. It is right that I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who tried to introduce this legislation previously. Fundamentally, this legislation has been overdue for well over 20 years. It is an important but discrete piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Nigel Evans: I call the shadow Minister.

Simon Lightwood: I will keep my remarks brief, as this is the penultimate main business before the Easter recess, and far be it for me to delay colleagues returning to their constituencies. I am grateful for all hon. Members who have participated in the Bill’s progress, particularly the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I am grateful for the hard work of colleagues in the other place, which meant that the Bill came to us in a much improved state, specifically by adding the provision for the regulation of noise nuisance. Their efforts to pressure the Government into changing their approach on requiring parliamentary approval ensured that the powers are fully devolved to Transport for London. That is commendable.
As I set out on Second Reading and again in Committee, Labour supports the Bill. For years there have been calls on the Government to grant Transport for London the powers it needs to regulate this industry. Labour welcomes the Bill as that will finally become law, and a regulated pedicab industry in London will soon emerge, but it has taken far too long to get here.
I must repeat what I emphasised on Second Reading: there is no doubt that the Bill is hugely welcome to London’s west end and a handful of other London areas, but these measures should have been introduced as part of a far wider transport Bill. Elsewhere in transport policy there remains desperate need for major transport reform, particularly on e-bikes and e-scooters, but the Government continue to duck that responsibility and have refused to use this opportunity to bring forward a long-promised and long-delayed transport Bill.
I have been listening carefully to the Minister’s arguments, and I welcome the Government being content that TfL can mandate enhanced DBS checks for pedicabs under current private hire vehicle legislation. It is regrettable that proposed new clauses 1 to 3, all pertaining to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children, were not accepted. TfL itself has indicated throughout its draft licensing framework that passenger safety will be its guiding principle, and it is keen to incorporate enhanced DBS checks into licensing conditions under clause 2(6)(a), but believes that it currently does not have the powers to  do so. Each of Labour’s new clauses offered a different way forward to incorporating enhanced DBS checks into TfL’s regulations.
It is disappointing that the Government have not taken the new clauses forward, but Labour welcomes the opportunity that tabling them has presented to facilitate a discussion on the importance of TfL having the powers to integrate enhanced DBS checks into its licensing regime. I welcome the exploration of alternative means, as the Minister described, to achieve the same objectives. In the light of that, I gently ask the Minister to meet me at his earliest convenience to discuss this issue further, and to identify ways that we can work together on a cross-party basis to grant TfL the powers it needs to keep customers safe.
Overall, this Bill is welcome, if not long overdue. It is a great addition to the statute book. Once again, I thank all hon. Members and Lords in the other place for their involvement, in addition to the Clerks and stakeholders who have helped us scrutinise the Bill effectively.

Florence Eshalomi: It is great to see progress on this Bill. I want to start by congratulating my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), on first introducing the Bill. I congratulate her on her persistence in getting this hard, long-awaited Bill to its last remaining stages. Like her, my Front-Bench colleagues and the Mayor of London, I have long supported the Bill as a means of giving Transport for London real power to regulate our pedicabs.
I will keep my remarks short. As others have highlighted today, the Bill highlights the serious problem of the unregulated regime for pedicabs in my constituency and other parts of London. My support for the Bill does not come from wanting to see pedicabs banned for good in all forms from our streets. Instead, like everybody else, I want a properly regulated industry that works for everybody. Unfortunately, what we have currently is one that creates tensions. Businesses see their pavements blocked and consumers discouraged, and residents are disrupted by excessively loud music during unsociable hours. Passengers face hiked, or even extortionate, fees for really short journeys. Most importantly, drivers themselves are forced to work in dangerous conditions and are undercut by those who cut corners in maintenance.
The Bill, with support from the Department for Transport, the Mayor of London and cross-party councils across London, strikes the right balance in allowing a sustainable and supported pedicabs industry to develop and flourish. We have waited far too long for it to be passed. While we have been waiting, we have continued to see people being ripped off, and consumers and visitors deterred from coming into the heart of London. We want more tourists bringing their families and their money, but when they have a bad experience, that spreads faster than the good experience. It is therefore really important that we continue to work together in the spirit of cross-party collaboration, and ensure we put an end to unregulated practice and get the Bill on to the statute book.

Nickie Aiken: I cannot quite believe we are here, to be honest. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have spent many a Friday in the Chair listening to me make the argument  for why we need pedicab regulation. It has never been about eradicating pedicabs. It has always been about making them safer for the tourists who use them and for the drivers who drive them, and making Westminster a much more pleasant place to live, work and have a business.
People do not appreciate that in the west end of London there are thousands of people living in social housing, whether in Soho, Fitzrovia, Covent Garden or Marylebone. They have no choice where they live. They are given a home in a social housing block, whether via the council or a housing association, and they are not able to move. Often, they have to live with horrendous experiences that a minority of pedicabs ply: the loud music played for hours on end in the early hours; tourists ripped off; and so many other examples.
We must continue to grow the London economy, especially the central London economy, which has taken such a battering following covid and the energy crisis. We need to ensure that when tourists come here they have a fantastic time. I personally fully believe that licensing for pedicabs will improve the offer. It will ensure that people enjoy it and that they have a special time in London.
I am absolutely delighted that, after four private Members’ Bills, the Government accepted the need for the Bill. I reiterate my thanks to those in No. 10, Will Tanner and James Nation, for all the support they gave me, and to the Prime Minister, who was fully behind it. My greatest thanks go to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has really worked me on this. I thank him so much. I thank the shadow Front Benchers for their support and my dear friend the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi)—people talk about having friendships in the Chamber, and I am so proud to have her as a friend. I would also like to thank all the organisations across the west end—the Soho Society, the Marylebone Association and others—who have been behind me all the way. I honestly believe the Bill will make a huge difference, so I thank everyone again. For the people of the west end, this will make a huge difference.

Christopher Chope: I, too, add my thanks to the people involved in this issue. In particular, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for the way in which she has taken forward the interests of her constituents. I am disappointed, in a sense, that she has decided to throw in the towel and not stand again at the next general election. Perhaps in her retirement from the House she will be able to become a licensed pedicab driver herself—[Laughter]—and thereby be able to use her knowledge and experience. She certainly will not have much difficulty in being able to pass the regulatory requirement of knowing the location of central London and how to get around it.
I also thank the London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK, both of which have helped me in putting questions about the Bill. I think it important for awkward questions to be put to those who are promoting legislation such as this, and I have found it disappointing that a number of London Members have not questioned any of it. I think that today’s interchange between the  Minister and me should concentrate minds on ensuring that the regulations, when they are finally implemented, do exactly what we want them to do, so that we are able to have a thriving pedicab industry and activity throughout the country, rather than just in London. As we have heard, that is already the case on the continent and in North America.
Soon after I was elected—a long time ago—I started to take my two children on a tandem trailer, with my wife and I on the tandem. As a result, my commitment to cycling knows no bounds and cannot be questioned. I hope that the Bill will reinforce the strong case for cycling, and encourage more people to take the strain and allow others to join them. Indeed, an increasing number of parents are now taking their children to school and on outings on the back of their bikes, and good on them for doing so.
It may have taken 20 years for this legislation to get here, but reforming legislation is an iterative process. Twenty-odd years ago the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association was completely against the idea of pedicabs, but I hope we will find that it now tolerates and indeed accepts them, and perhaps we can encourage taxi organisations outside London to welcome this very valuable alternative form of transport.

Shaun Bailey: I will be brief, because I had not intended to speak, but having followed the debate, particularly in Committee and on Third Reading, I want to thank my hon. Friend—I say that with such heartfelt meaning—the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has demonstrated the power of this place. We talk about coming here and making tangible change, but what has happened today—in addition to the commendable work that my hon. Friend has done, along with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), in producing this legislation—just goes to show that despite the bandying around and argy-bargy that sometimes happens, we can make truly bring about real change.
I must also put on the record how sad I am to lose my hon. Friend from this place, and how much of a loss it will be. She represents, without doubt, the best of this place and, if I may say so, the best of our party. I want to say how proud I am to have watched her take the Bill forward over the last four years in the way that she has. The fact that she has been able to do this for her constituents constitutes a monument to her and a legacy. I simply say to her—and I think we would all agree, across the House—that she should be very proud of what she has done today, because she has followed this through and won it for her constituents. She has done what all of us in this place set out to do, and I think that her constituents will be proud of her and grateful as well.

Nigel Evans: We are all going to miss you, Nickie—although obviously I will be going out to Dubai to stay for a few weeks.

Nickie Aiken: I will have a room ready for you.

Nigel Evans: Here we go!
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

National Networks National  Policy Statement

[Relevant document: Ninth Report of the Transport Committee of Session 2022-23, National Networks National Policy Statement, HC 903, and the Government response, Session 2023-24.]

Guy Opperman: I beg to move,
That this House approves the National Policy Statement for National Networks, which was laid before this House on 6 March.
It is me again—it is déjà vu all over again. I will be brief in my opening speech. I stand here today as the Minister in the Department for Transport who is responsible for infrastructure planning and delivery, although some of my colleagues handle some of the other key development consent orders in that respect.
The national networks national policy statement, or NNNPS, provides the planning framework for determining applications for nationally significant road, rail and strategic freight interchange projects. These are schemes determined under the process set out in the Planning Act 2008. The NNNPS sets out why we need to develop these networks, and how applications for projects will be assessed. It does not set out locations where national network development will take place, neither is it a transport strategy governing wider transport policies, such as active travel. The existing NNNPS was designated in 2015, and approximately 30 road, rail and SRFI schemes have gained consent since then.
The draft NNNPS was subject to public consultation. Alongside that, the Transport Committee, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), undertook an inquiry into the draft. We have made a number of changes in response to the Committee’s work, and I want to put on the record that I am grateful to the Committee for its careful consideration of all the issues raised through both written and oral evidence. I would like to apologise on the record to the Committee, because our initial response to its report did not include a response to one of its recommendations. Today, I have laid in the House an amended version of the response, which responds to all the recommendations, including the recommendation concerning the application of the NNNPS to other consenting regimes, such as under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The NNNPS already provides guidance to applicants on that point, and we believe that this strikes the right balance.
You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have invested £24 billion in the country’s most important roads through the second road investment strategy, and are committed to the next five-year plan for maintaining and enhancing the network. In Network North, we have recognised the importance of local road infrastructure by providing major increases in funding for the major network programme, with some £900 million extra in the midlands and £1.4 billion extra in the north to support regional connectivity and growth.
Our railways are a vital part of the country’s transport infrastructure, and well-targeted rail investments play a crucial role in growing the economy and meeting the connectivity needs of customers and businesses. We also want to ensure that we support freight in all its  forms. Freight trains carry goods worth over £30 billion per year across a range of different commodities—specifically, supporting construction and intermodal flows, which can include customers’ goods.
It is right that we provide a planning policy framework that enables us to deliver projects and investment as quickly as possible. The revised NNNPS does that, and I commend this statement to the House.

Bill Esterson: I had anticipated a slightly longer opening speech from the Minister. Nevertheless, here we are today to debate a new national networks national policy statement, a decade after the previous statement was published in 2014. The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) originally promised that the Government would review the NNNPS in July 2021, but here we are, nearly three years on from that promise and a decade on from the last published statement. Perhaps the Minister could explain why it took so long to get to this point.
The UK committed to reach net zero by 2050 when we signed the Paris agreement in 2015. It is not good enough that it took nine years for net zero to finally be integrated into the NNNPS. Since 2015, we have moved backwards on net zero. Just look at the Prime Minister’s delaying of the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans. This rowing back on net zero is not just a disaster for the planet; it will worsen the cost of living crisis for drivers, with an estimated cost to consumers of an eye-watering £13 billion in higher fuel costs as a direct result of the Prime Minister’s decision.
Then there is the mess he made of HS2. The irony and symbolism of where he made the announcement is lost on no one: a disused railway station at the end of the proposed line. Everyone recognises the impact of the decision on net zero. Even the writers of “The Thick of It” would have dismissed such a plotline as far too implausible.
Freight trains have 76% fewer emissions than the equivalent road transport capacity, but because of the Prime Minister’s chaotic decision making, half a million more lorry journeys will add to the clogging up of our roads every year by carrying freight that could have been delivered by rail. I wonder whether the Minister will respond to that point about rail freight.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a legitimate point about HS2. Clearly the Prime Minister’s decision on 6 October was to redistribute that funding to a variety of projects, particularly in the north, but what is the Labour party policy? Is its manifesto proposal to continue with HS2 and the second leg or not?

Bill Esterson: It is a shame that the Minister did not stand up to announce that the Government had found some miraculous way of returning to the consensus. We know that the Conservatives have taken a wrecking ball to the HS2 project, and that they blew the budget, which is why they cancelled it, so we are not going to be able to revive it. After the rushing through of the fire sale of the land, the downgrading of ambition on major stations such as Euston and the reallocation of funding originally meant for HS2, which I think he referred to in his speech, there is no way we would be able to revive it.
Is it any wonder that the Transport Committee has warned us that there is still a lot of catching up to do when it comes to our climate change commitments and to ensuring that we deliver major infrastructure projects on time and to budget? The Transport Committee’s members made their concerns crystal clear when they said that
“the Government should have been proactive and reviewed the NPS upon the introduction of Net Zero targets, and should do when any changes are made to net zero target policies”.
Yet the latest national networks national policy statement still leaves gaps, notably in its admission that
“residual carbon emissions as an impact of NSIP”—
nationally significant infrastructure project—
“schemes are acceptable”.
There is a further lack of clarity over what “residual carbon emissions” means in practice, and the policy statement does not offer a process to distinguish between acceptable residual emissions and emissions that would mean carbon targets would not be met. The Transport Planning Society has even warned that the contradiction between the NNNPS and the transport decarbonisation plans is “potentially incredibly dangerous”.
We all know that our planning system is broken, with too many projects bogged down in development limbo for years on end as they wait for a decision, but the Transport Committee has warned that the gaps in this policy statement that I have just identified could lead to even more costly and time-consuming legal challenges to major projects on climate grounds. This would slow down our snail’s-pace planning system even further, and it is the taxpayer that would pay the price for the delays.
The flaws in the statement do not stop there. The Government have failed to take into account local authority-level targets and carbon budgets, to ensure that the local level impact of major development projects is taken into account. Meanwhile, Midlands Connect warns that sub-national transport bodies have also been snubbed. Many of these bodies have already developed strategic transport plans at regional level to support economic growth and reduce carbon emissions. They should not be ignored.
The National Infrastructure Planning Association has highlighted a lack of clarity in a number of areas, such as the frequency with which policy is reviewed, and the need for further detail to be published. The organisation warned that “weak links” ultimately result in
“delays to decisions on DCO applications”.
It warns that those delays to development consent orders could
“slow down the delivery of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects”.
So will the Minister tell us whether the Government are going to take the action that is needed so that Britain does not fall even further behind in the development of vital national infrastructure?
On the subject of existing delays to planning, the planning process has already become cumbersome and slow under this Government, with the time taken to grant development consent orders increasing by 65% since 2012, to more than four years. In response to the Transport Committee’s report, which flagged the planning  system as a key source of delay in delivering infrastructure projects, the Government themselves even admitted that they recognised
“the need for modernisation and reform to the planning system”.
I have covered the shambolic approach to HS2, but a whole range of other major infrastructure projects that the Minister’s Department is supposedly committed to delivering have seen soaring costs and repeated delays. Years of failure to deliver rail infrastructure upgrades such as the midland main line have robbed communities of the benefits of better transport services.
The Minister mentioned his so-called Network North proposal, but I remind him that 85% of its projects are reannouncements. Much of the investment is not even in the north. In fact, some of it includes filling potholes in London—I do not think it is just north London, either.
Although the headline figure masks the fact that the money is spread over 11 years, as we established at Transport questions on Thursday, the average annual funding is equivalent to only a third of last year’s increase in the backlog of local road repairs. The consequences of these failures are not theoretical but all too real. Communities are being denied the huge economic opportunities that transport infrastructure projects can deliver, and they are currently stuck relying on creaking Victorian infrastructure.
The reality is that this Government’s track record on delivering nationally significant infrastructure projects is woeful. Today’s debate should be an opportunity to review and to learn from what has gone wrong after 14 years of delays, failures to deliver, constant policy changes and contradictions. Unlike this Government, Labour is committed to meeting our climate obligations and to getting Britain building again.
We recognise the need to address the bottlenecks on our rail network to cut congestion and emissions, which is why we have committed to a credible and transformative programme of transport infrastructure investment to link our towns and cities, particularly across the north and midlands. We also recognise the need to deliver for drivers by cutting congestion, improving the state of public transport and removing the barriers that are blocking the electric vehicle charging infrastructure roll-out.
Labour will do what this Government have failed to do by reforming the broken planning system to ensure that upgrades and progress on our transport infrastructure are actually delivered. Labour’s plan for government will accelerate infrastructure delivery, extend the reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and ensure that the action plan for the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime covers the Transport and Works Act 1992, the Highways Act 1980 and the hybrid Bill process. We will encourage active travel, support public transport and give local authorities the power to better integrate their local transport networks.
We have launched an independent review of transport infrastructure. Driven by industry experts, the review will explore how transport infrastructure can be delivered on time and on budget, learning lessons from the mess that this Government have made of major projects such as HS2. We will update all national policy statements within six months of taking office to ensure they help, not hinder, the construction of important transport infrastructure projects.
Labour is serious about learning the lessons from the staggering failure of the last 14 years. We accept that this national policy statement improves on what came before in some areas, which is why we will not oppose it today, but the Minister really should set out why he believes that the policy statement’s lack of clarity on crucial points, particularly on climate change commitments, will not worsen the delays that are already slowing our planning system to a crawl.
If the Minister cannot or will not provide those answers today, Labour will look again at the provisions when we embark on our own review of the national policy statements. As we seek to ensure that we both respect our climate change commitments and deliver on our mission to get Britain building again, Labour does not accept the managed decline of our vital infrastructure. We will not accept barriers and blockages to the upgrades we need for smoother, greener transport and to enable everyone to benefit from the enhanced economic opportunities that will follow from better transport connections.
Britain is the country that gave the world the railways. We can and should be leading the world on delivering better, greener transport infrastructure. In government, Labour will make that a reality.

Nigel Evans: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

Iain Stewart: It is a pleasure to make a short contribution to this debate. As the Minister alluded to, the Transport Committee conducted the scrutiny of the draft national networks NPS. We concluded it in October last year and published our recommendations. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, let me take this opportunity to place on record my grateful thanks to the Clerk of the Committee, Judith Boyce, her team, all the advisers we had and the witnesses who gave us evidence. Particularly on topics that can be very technical, their support and guidance was invaluable, and I thank them all for helping me in this work.
The review of the NNNPS was overdue and I am glad that the Government appreciated that there was a need for an update. I am also grateful that they accepted one of our central recommendations: that the NNNPS should be placed on a five-yearly review, with a shorter review term if that is justified by policy changes. That does not mean we should look forward to a complete handbrake turn revision of the NNNPS, but it is important that there is the opportunity to consider the wider policy environment and Government priorities.
I also very much welcome the Government’s acceptance of some of our other recommendations, with the first being that the NNNPS should, for clarity, explicitly state the Government’s understanding of the legal precedent for permitting major infrastructure schemes that increase emissions where that increase is judged as not likely to harm the achievement of a national target. Secondly, the Government accepted that they should publish their own estimated congestion forecasts for the strategic road network. Thirdly, they accepted a reinstatement of wording on sites of special scientific interest. The draft  did not contain that and without it developers may have been able to argue that the impacts of a project on biodiversity would not need to be mitigated. I am particularly grateful that that wording has been reinstated.
Alongside the Government’s response to our recommendations, we heard two welcome announcements. The first was of a review of the transport infrastructure legislation to seek more effective delivery of future nationally significant infrastructure projects. Perhaps most significant was the announcement by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, that a wider independent review would be set up, headed by Lord Banner, on speeding up the delivery of major infrastructure projects. Over many Governments, there has been a frustration that significant projects required for the country take too long, so looking at ways to speed this up is very much to be welcomed.
I just want to caveat that welcome with a suggestion that we also need to look more widely at the strategic decision-making process for transport and related infrastructure. The NNNPS and the two reviews I mentioned look at the “how” of transport infrastructure project delivery but less at the “why” and the “should”. One recommendation we made, which the Government rejected, was that they should be more transparent in the decision-making process on potential alternatives to nationally significant infrastructure project choices. The rejection of that recommendation raises a concern with me, as transport projects are not just put in place for the sake of it; we do not build a new railway, road, port extension and so on just because it is good in itself. These projects are there for a purpose; they are there to support wider policy objectives. Be it in supporting trade, housing and economic regeneration, decarbonisation or many other things, transport does not sit in glorious isolation from other policy objectives.
I question whether we, as a country, have had the right decision-making process in place, over many decades, to appraise and evaluate different projects, in order to ensure joined-up thinking on policy across Government. To help explore that, one of the Committee’s current inquiries is on strategic transport objectives. I do not yet have any recommendations to make, as we are still part way through that inquiry. It looks at a number of issues in the round, including policy development, what decisions should be made centrally or at a devolved level, and how to inject longer-term certainty into the system to help lever in additional private investment.
Transport will always fall below more immediate and electorally saleable spending. Whether that spending is on the health service, the police, defence or a range of other areas, transport will always be lower down the priority queue under any Government. By their very nature, projects last well beyond the course of a single parliamentary or governmental term, so having that longer-term perspective is important. In addition to our inquiry, the Liaison Committee is undertaking an inquiry on strategic thinking to ensure the way that the Government are wired enables a longer-term planning perspective.
I wanted to place those points on the record. In a 90-minute debate we are not going to be able to get into all the whys and wherefores, but I welcome the revision to the NNNPS and the two related reviews that the  Government have announced. It is two cheers from me, though, because there is another element that we need to consider. I look forward to the work of my Committee and others contributing to that debate.

Matt Rodda: It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly in this afternoon’s important debate on transport infrastructure. It is a great pleasure to follow the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I will be brief, but I want to make a number of points to support the shadow Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and to highlight the importance of investing in infrastructure to support economic growth.
First, I will raise a few points that matter to my constituents, some of which are immediate because they happened this week. There were severe delays on the Great Western main line yesterday. A number of colleagues, myself and many thousands of commuters were left waiting for long periods, in some cases up to two hours, because of a problem with the electricity supply to the overhead wires. That has happened a number of times before for various reasons. I urge the Minister to consult with the Rail Minister and feed back the serious concerns of travellers on this vital piece of infrastructure. The line connects London with towns in the south-east, such as Reading, and is of strategic importance across the whole UK, connecting Wales, Bristol, the south-west and parts of the midlands with the capital city. It is vital that train travellers can rely on this excellent service, which normally allows swift and easy access to the heart of London. It is now supported by the Elizabeth line, which is a huge benefit to us all. However, there has been a series of issues with the overhead wires, which I hope the Minister will flag up. Will he or a colleague write to me to update me on the problems experienced by passengers and to highlight the action being taken to address them?
On a related issue of regional and national infrastructural importance, I wanted to flag up the importance of getting a sensible policy on smart motorways. In my part of England, we have had a smart motorway installed along the M4 from west London as far west as Theale, just beyond Reading. Unfortunately, the work was carried out using the revised specification, which puts refuges up to a mile apart. In my opinion and that of many critics, that is too far apart to be genuinely safe. Will the Minister look at that policy again? Other parts of the south of England have been affected by a similar approach to upgrading the motorway, such as the M27 around Southampton, Portsmouth and neighbouring towns. Again, unfortunately, when the work was carried out, a revised spec was used rather than the original one, which had more frequent refuge points. Will the Minister write to me and colleagues on that matter, which is of great importance to our region and to the country as a whole?
Those two significant issues relate to existing infrastructure. My third issue relates to forthcoming infrastructure. I urge the Minister to implore his colleagues to get the Government’s act together on the electrification of vehicles. Obviously, the Government backtracked on the 2030 target—sadly and wrongly, in my opinion—and in addition they have made matters worse by not achieving  the intermediate steps they set out such as putting in a suitable number of charging points at motorway service areas. Range anxiety continues to be a major problem and is delaying the purchase and uptake of electric vehicles in many cases. It would be good if the Minister updated colleagues on progress.
I understand that the Government have not achieved their target of about six charging points in each service area—that seems a low bar—and that we may have something like four per service area on average at the moment. Even if six were achieved, that would be way below the potential needed for vehicles if they are truly to be electrified quickly and effectively so that we can hit our targets for tackling the climate emergency and boost British production of electric cars, which is a success story in our motor industry.
Those are some key strategic issues. If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will mention some areas not directly covered by the policy statement but that many consider strategic priorities. We have the appalling state of the road network as a whole with the increase in potholes, which has possibly been exacerbated by heavy rain and frosts this winter. That is a huge challenge for the country as a whole. It affects many motorists, with people having to pay for expensive repairs, and it is a huge safety issue for both motorists and cyclists. I urge the Minister to look at that again, as well as at the speed at which the backlog in potholes is being tackled, and to support local authorities taking a more progressive and imaginative approach. My council, Reading Borough Council, has approached potholes with an “invest to save” mentality, doing large sections rather than just filling in individual potholes, and that seems to be tackling the backlog more effectively than some neighbouring authorities—Oxfordshire and Wokingham in particular—which are somewhat behind with their pothole filling.
Other matters that many people see as strategically important but are not under the statement’s remit include the encouraging of walking and cycling. Only 1% of the transport budget is spent on those important areas, yet their benefits to the country are huge. As we heard earlier when considering the Pedicabs (London) Bill, shifting people from cars to cycling allows more road space for those who do have to drive—we are not able to create much more road space—takes pollution out of the atmosphere, which is vital, and can improve road safety and people’s health and fitness. That is hugely important for the country, yet it gets only 1% of transport spending. Surely we should be looking at that again and trying to encourage it.
That includes improving safety in particular for pedestrians and for women at night by improving lighting, crossings and other measures. In my constituency, I commend local councillors, and Will Cross in Redlands ward in particular, who has ably championed the need for a pedestrian crossing on Upper Redlands Road. It should not take that much effort from a dedicated councillor to deliver something like that; it should be much more routine, with more pots of money available, and be considered in aggregate a national priority. Even if individual schemes are small, their overall effect is significant.
Thank you for indulging me slightly on those last few points, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to speak and appreciate the Minister offering to write to me on some of the more immediate and significant matters.

Christopher Chope: I have just a short contribution to make. The “National Networks National Policy Statement” refers at paragraph 3.2 to the fact that
“Population growth and economic growth are the most critical influences on travel demand.”
We know that the Government are much preoccupied with the need for economic growth. I wish them well, and I hope that we make a lot more progress than we have, particularly in economic growth per capita in the last 10 years. However, on the other aspect, we do not have any national policy statement about population growth, yet it is fundamental to all policy making done in government and in this House. Why do we not have a national policy statement about population growth? How is it that we have, by happenstance, allowed our population to increase by the best part of another million over the past 18 months? How can that continue? There is a reference in the document to projected growth over the next 20 or 30 years, but there is no basis for that.
It seems to me that underlying all our policymaking should be a policy about population growth. How many people do we wish to have in our country? What do we think is the sustainable maximum population? How is that population going to be looked after in terms of the age profile? Are we encouraging more of our own people in this country to have children and sustain the population in that way, as they do very effectively in Hungary? Or do we have a different policy, which, effectively, is to import labour into this country, thereby increasing the population exponentially?
I am not expecting my hon. Friend the Minister to come up with a definitive answer on this, but I think the point is worth raising. Why is it that we have a national policy statement on national networks, but we do not have one on population growth? I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we will be able to get one quite soon.

Caroline Lucas: Once again, the Government seem to be dodging scrutiny. This national policy statement for national networks has significant implications for the delivery of our climate and environment targets, yet rather than giving MPs the opportunity to properly debate it, this Government have, it feels to me at least, rather cynically left the approval of it to the very last minute before the Easter recess, when many colleagues have already returned to their constituencies. There are barely 10 people here in the Chamber this afternoon.
There are many concerns, in my view, about this particular statement, but I wish to focus in my brief intervention on the climate and nature consequences. As the Minister is well aware, when the review of the NPS was announced in July 2021, it was explained by the then Secretary of State on the basis that the 2014 NPS predated the UK’s commitment to net zero by 2050, the sixth carbon budget and the transport decarbonisation plan.
Aligning the NPS with our climate targets is, of course, absolutely essential, not least because about 10% of the UK’s CO2 emissions come from driving on the strategic road network and, according to the National  Audit Office, transport-related emissions between 1990 and 2022 were reduced by just 11%—the lowest of any sector. There is a real problem here and, frankly, this policy statement fundamentally fails to rise to the occasion and to the challenge that that poses.
In its 2023 progress report to Parliament, the Committee on Climate Change recommended what it called
“a systematic review of all current and proposed road schemes”,
with only those that
“meaningfully support cost-effective delivery of Net Zero and climate adaptation”
to be taken forward. Perhaps the Minister can explain to me why his Department has refused to undertake any assessment, and why the NPS essentially reverts to the current pre-net zero carbon test. In the absence of such a review, can he explain how he plans to close the gaping delivery gap when it comes to cutting transport emissions?
Just last week, the Green Alliance think-tank published the latest update of its net zero policy tracker, which revealed that transport accounts for 70%—yes, 70%—of the overall policy gap for delivering the fifth carbon budget, so this is a huge issue, with 37% of the required emission cuts having absolutely no policy set out for them. Crucially, Green Alliance suggests that measures such as reviewing road building and redirecting funding into public transport would help to close the policy gap, so why is it not in this plan?
Rather than making our constituents ever more dependent on private cars, this NPS should have set out the need for bold rail and urban transport upgrades. It should have been about levelling up public transport outside London and improving cross-country rail. The first priority of the transport decarbonisation plan is modal shift, yet the NPS has no target for that. In fact, seven of the eight Department for Transport scenarios on which it is based assume exactly the wrong kind of modal shift—in other words, a shift to cars. Will the Minister explain why the statement does not reference the 2030 target for 50% of urban journeys to be made by active travel?
Looking at our environmental targets, it is profoundly disappointing that the NPS fails to set out the implications of the new Environment Act 2021 targets at the strategic or scheme level. It is just not good enough to simply have due regard to some of the targets.
Not only is this NPS unclear—as observed by Professor Stephen Glaister, former chair of the Office of Rail and Road and director of the RAC Foundation, who told MPs that
“I do not see clarity in that draft myself”
but it fundamentally fails to set out a new direction of travel to ensure the delivery of our climate and environmental targets. In the age of climate crisis, we need more than passing references to net zero and muddled attempts to justify the roads programme. We need urgent and bold action to decarbonise the transport system. This statement clearly does not provide that.

Guy Opperman: I will try to address some of the points that have been raised.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), mentioned freight. He will be aware that we published the future freight strategy,  which is a long-term plan, in June 2022. It was developed with industry and sets out a cross-modal approach to achieve the long-term vision of a freight and logistics sector that is economically efficient, reliant, resilient, environmentally sustainable and valued by society. I am the co-chair of the Freight Council, alongside Isabel Dedring, who is an independent industry representative. The “Generation Logistics” campaign, which we hosted in the House of Commons, and the work that the Road Haulage Association and others are doing to drive forward true change in freight should genuinely be admired.
Turning to the points raised by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I take his two out of three cheers as being damned by faint praise. However, at the same time, no one is pretending that the statement is perfect. It is a work in progress—we all understand that. The document runs to over 100 pages and has been available for public consultation and oral hearings, and the Transport Committee has done an assessment of it, to which the Government have responded, so with respect, it is a substantial approach to this particular issue. I endorse the comments that he made about the future plans.
The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), whom I will insult by calling a friend of mine, raised a number of points, and I will ensure that the Rail Minister responds to him. On the electrification of vehicles, I push back gently. One has to be aware that the network of publicly available charge points is rapidly increasing, with almost 57,000 installed—a 47% increase since March 2023. Clearly, more can be done—no one would dispute that—and I echo and share his desire. He makes the fair point that we need more charging points, and I take that on board. As for the Great Western delays, the Rail Minister will respond on that.
The hon. Member for Reading East and others raised the state of the roads. The allegation was made that there is no vision either to support local authorities or to address that, and that there is no long-term levelling-up plan for the north. With respect, the Prime Minister’s decision on HS2 has done a number of key things. The first, obviously, is that £8.3 billion has gone out to local authorities up and down the country, responding to the HS2 profile over 11 years. On average, that is a 30% increase in funding over the past year for every local authority—genuinely game-changing amounts of money—and the long-term funding pattern allows local authorities to invest in the future. That is something that every local authority says it wants more of.
Turning to the aspiration to support the north, one of the key decisions was to ensure that almost all of the HS2 money was spent in the north and/or the midlands as the areas affected by HS2. That is why the money is going into Network North and into the local transport fund that was announced, which has seen hundreds of millions of pounds going out to lots of different local authorities. Some local authorities have seen their transport budget increased by nine times.
The types of announcements that the Government have made also outline their direction of travel in relation to this issue. With respect, I will outline five things that the Government have done in the past 10 days alone. I was proud to announce the safer roads fund, which is spending a further £35 million in multiple locations across the country to try to enhance their road safety. Last Friday, the Secretary of State announced the ZEBRA  scheme—for those who do not know, that is the zero-emission bus regional areas. There are dozens of locations up and down the country with hundreds of zero-emission buses funded and supported by this Government.
On Saturday, I announced active travel fund 4, which is worth £101 million, and saw some of the schemes that are being put in place in Darlington with the excellent Mayor, Ben Houchen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I have also been with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) to see the £1.2 million that is going into the Medway active travel scheme. Clearly, the Automated Vehicles Bill is something that this Government have also championed.

Anthony Browne: Hear, hear!

Guy Opperman: My hon. Friend and co-Minister, and partner in optimism—I think that is the best way of putting it—is addressing some of those points.
There was further criticism in relation to the issue of climate change. I would gently push back: clearly, there has been a lot of change in Government policy since the national networks national policy statement was designated in 2015, particularly the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. The transport decarbonisation plan, published in 2021, set out how transport’s contribution to net zero will be delivered, and the Environment Act 2021 introduced a more stringent approach to environmental protection and opportunities for enhancement of the natural environment. We have also seen the publication of road investment strategy 2 and the integrated rail plan, as well as support for rail freight, including the announcement of the rail freight growth target in December 2023. The NNNPS has been reviewed to reflect those changes in Government policy and to remain a robust framework for decision making on nationally significant infrastructure project schemes. Clearly, there are ongoing challenges in certain courts to the development of roads, and we await the decisions of those courts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) tempted me to become the Home Secretary. As we all know, the chances of that are our old friends slim and none, but I will take up with the Home Secretary the question of whether there should be a population growth assessment.
I thank all colleagues for their contributions today.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: No. I genuinely commend the NNNPS, which is a mighty piece of work, to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the National Policy Statement for National Networks, which was laid before this House on 6 March.

Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Clive Efford: I wish to present a petition on behalf of those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal, particularly on behalf of my constituents Mary Grindley and Lee Moorey. Lee was a pupil at the Treloar’s boarding school, where many  children with haemophilia were given contaminated blood products. Mary was married to her husband John, who died of AIDS aged 41. Mary has campaigned tirelessly for justice for her husband and thousands like him for over 40 years.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Eltham,
Declares that people who have received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002934]

Allan Dorans: I rise to present this petition, owing to the Budget’s failure to allocate any money to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. The final compensation recommendations were made by Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood public inquiry, in April 2023. This House voted in December to establish a body to pay compensation, as an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. With two victims of the scandal dying every week, on average, justice delayed is justice denied.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain etc.
[P002946]

Petition - Rent and service charge increases in Lewisham East

Janet Daby: I rise to present this petition on behalf of Phoebe’s Place residents in Lewisham East. It recognises that my constituents who live in shared ownership housing in Catford are being affected by rent increases of 9% and service charge increases of up to 62% by their housing provider, Moat Housing. I understand that the building needs to be maintained. However, this huge rise is not the fault of the residents, and Moat Housing must ensure that residents are not left with sudden unexpected costs. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls for Moat Housing to review its decision, and that any increases this year and in future years remain at very least in line with inflation.
Following is the full text of the petition:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Lewisham East,
[Declares that Moat Housing has written to inform the residents in Phoebe’s Place, SE6 2FA, which was developed in 2021 of 27 Flats as part of the affordable housing scheme, regarding increases in rent ranging from 8.6% to 9.4%, and increases in service charge, ranging from 30.3% to 65%; notes that this exceeds current levels of inflation; and further that the petitioners believe that the proposed rent and service charge increases are not justified nor affordable.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Moat Housing to review their decision and that any increase in this year and in future years remain at the very least in line with inflation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002948]

Public Transport:  Carshalton and Wallington

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Elliot Colburn: Mr Deputy Speaker, as we approach the recess, may I wish you and all colleagues a very happy Easter?
Today, I would like to address the adequacy of public transport in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency, which is one of the worst boroughs for public transport connectivity in Greater London. Being able to move around quickly and conveniently, as well as easily to commute to jobs and businesses across London, is vital for a vibrant economy and community, and my constituents living on the edges of London and Surrey deserve the same levels of connectivity that the rest of our capital enjoys.
I would like to mention a variety of areas of public transport from trains to buses, the Overground and, of course, our roads. There are also areas where transport provision could be much strengthened, and I will no doubt touch on some of those a little later. My constituents in Carshalton and Wallington have been deprived of consistent and reliable public transport by the Mayor of London, backed up by a Liberal Democrat council. Rather than help improve our connectivity, the Mayor and the council have overseen the shelving of the tram extension; the scrapping entirely of the Go Sutton bus; the possibility of reducing bus services such as the 410; the scrapping of the 455, and replacing it with an inconvenient existing route; and all this while bringing in the so-called Superloop, which is just the rebranding of an existing bus route.
Before the pandemic, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) were keen to begin discussions on an extension to the London Overground from West Croydon to Sutton, but the sheer mismanagement of TfL’s finances by the Mayor means that is now unlikely. To almost no one’s surprise, the Mayor is asleep at the wheel, otherwise occupied with his vanity projects, and too busy imposing the ultra low emission zone on my constituents. He seems content to leave my constituency stranded without a public transport system that it can be proud of.
Since the pandemic, rail services to stations at Carshalton, Wallington, Hackbridge and Carshalton Beeches have been running at a reduced level. Regular, consistent services are vital to connect my constituents with employment, education and essential services in other parts of London, and of course Surrey. That reduced service means fewer trains from Carshalton to London Victoria. Indeed, something like half the existing services are running, which has meant a significant reduction in accessibility and convenience. Off-peak services from Carshalton Beeches and Wallington to West Croydon and beyond have been reduced from six to four trains per hour. Fortunately, Thameslink services to Blackfriars have remained unchanged, which offers some semblance of stability, but the overall picture paints a concerning narrative of dwindling connectivity and accessibility for my constituents.
I have long campaigned for, and been successful in convincing rail operators to restore, some of the peak-time services post covid, as well as extending the number of carriages on some peak-time services. However, those services are still too far from what they used to be, and my mailbag is often filled with correspondence from constituents who have been unable to board extremely busy weekend rail services made up of just four or five carriages. I would appreciate any support the Minister can provide to help convince rail operators to restore more peak-time rail services, as well as adequate numbers of carriages on trains and adequate weekend services.
Staying on the topic of rail, I wish to thank Network Rail and Govia Thameslink Rail, which operates Southern and Thameslink, for their continued engagement with me in a number of different areas. One of those is the southbound platform at Hackbridge station, and we have now secured funding to fix what I call the Hackbridge gap problem. That gap is a huge step down from train to platform. It is extremely dangerous, and many people have fallen down. The issue has become so serious that some people have had to travel on to the next stop at Carshalton, and come back to Hackbridge via the northbound line because they simply did not feel safe disembarking from Hackbridge station. I am glad that we have secured funding to do that, and I look forward to seeing the project get under way.
I have also been campaigning hard for step-free access to the southbound platform at Carshalton Beeches station. We have put in several Access for All applications over the years, and I hope that the Minister will give some indication as to when the next round might be available for comment. I sincerely hope that we will be successful this time round, so that once again people do not have to travel on to Sutton, the next station, and come back to Carshalton Beeches the other way in order to disembark safely.
Moving slightly outside my constituency, if I may, another area that would greatly improve transport for my constituents—indeed, this is probably the major sticking point when it comes to increasing rail capacity for my constituency and most of suburban London—is the Croydon area remodelling scheme, which is the major junction on the Brighton main line and the suburban rail network in south London and the home counties. The project does a number of things. It would upgrade East Croydon station and the surrounding rail infrastructure to enhance capacity and efficiency, and it encompasses several pivotal elements, including the revitalisation and renovation of the station itself, the remodelling of Selhurst junction, which is where trains are becoming congested, and the expansion of railway tracks north of East Croydon.
The capacity issues that that project would resolve are often the sticking point for running more rail services in the region. Indeed, GTR and Network Rail have spoken regularly about their ambitions to make suburban rail services a lot more like the metro system that we have on the London underground—a sort of turn-up-and-go system, rather than the strict and limited timetable we currently have.
By delivering on the Croydon area remodelling scheme, or the Croydon bottleneck, we would help alleviate the congestion, which would be good not just for my constituents, but for the majority of London and the south-east. It would unlock rail capacity all the way  down to Brighton and parts of the south coast, as well as in the capital. In the words of the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman):
“In the current economic context, it is more important than ever for the enhancement schemes we take forward to be affordable and respond to changes in demand for travel”.
That is exactly what the Croydon area remodelling scheme would deliver.
Moreover, as we await updates to the rail network enhancements pipeline, it is essential to acknowledge the broader context in which the Croydon area remodelling scheme operates. The Government’s commitment to rail enhancements, shown through the Network North announcements, reflects an effort to modernise and expand railway infrastructure across the country, and they should be commended for that. The Croydon area remodelling scheme would bring a more efficient, sustainable and interconnected transport network to London and the south-east, and show clear improvements, not least to rail capacity, for my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington.
Finally, I want to talk about connectivity by road, which is still the most common form of transport in my constituency. The one thing that is attacking my constituents the most and causing them the most grief is the dreaded expansion of the ultra low emission zone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who brought in a Bill to overturn ULEZ. It was incredibly welcome that the Government gave it their backing, but very disappointing that Labour and the Liberal Democrats tried to prevent the Bill from progressing. In fact, Labour Members talked out the Bill to prevent its passage through this House.
As the Secretary of State has rightly said, ULEZ is a cruel form of taxation affecting the poorest in society and hitting heavily those who have older motor vehicles that they simply cannot afford to upgrade, with or without a scrappage scheme. My constituents regularly raise their concerns about ULEZ with me, and I completely agree with them. As I have stressed, the Mayor fails to acknowledge the poor connectivity of Carshalton and Wallington. On top of that, he has decided to tax the most hard-working, poorest Londoners. It is time that the pollution argument that is often made when it comes to ULEZ was eradicated. Genuine concern for the environment would involve a complete ban of non-compliant vehicles, not a charge to use them. Provided that Khan finds himself with an additional £12.50 per car in the TfL coffers, people can drive as they please.
The evidence is clear from the Mayor’s own impact assessment and assessments that have been done since that this is not about air quality, but about the Mayor’s inability to manage TfL’s finances. The expansion scheme was roundly rejected by the people of London, as can be evidenced through his consultation, yet the Mayor, backed by the Lib Dems and the Greens in City Hall, all gleefully voted in favour of it. In fact, the Lib Dems boasted that it was their idea in the first place. The Mayor went ahead with this tax on motorists, and he did not even mention it in his manifesto to get elected.
I urge caution to those voters who are now being told by the Mayor that he will not bring in any more charges if he gets re-elected—do not believe it. We know that  the Mayor of London is currently looking, and has employed people in TfL to look, at a pay-per-mile scheme, which means that every single car driver in Greater London will be charged not only for using their car, no matter whether it is compliant, but for how long and how far they drive it. We must reject that. We must get rid of the Mayor of London on 2 May and replace him with someone who will not charge car drivers, and that is Susan Hall.
Between 26 September and 6 November, in the early stages of the expanded ULEZ, something like 2,700 fines were issued in Sutton, and nearly 100,000 in London as a whole, once again proving that ULEZ is simply a money-making scheme. I have heard from many of my constituents that they have not been accepted for the scrappage scheme. Only about a third of applications in my borough have been accepted so far, yet these people simply cannot afford to upgrade their vehicles. That places a huge burden on people and is a threat to their livelihoods.
The ULEZ charge means that elderly people are isolated in their homes because they cannot afford to get in the car and leave, and people are not coming to visit them. Small businesses either have to pass the £12.50 charge on to their customers or absorb it, at a time when they are struggling as well. It means the Royal Marsden cancer hospital has to refund cancer patients £12.50 a day to come to Sutton to receive treatment for cancer. The NHS should not be having to reimburse ULEZ charges to cancer patients. There should not be ULEZ charges on cancer patients, and yet that is the reality we live with in Sutton. Nurses, doctors, teachers, parents, charities and businesses are all being affected by the ULEZ charge, and hard-working Londoners deserve better.
To conclude, I ask the Minister whether he will continue to work with me to see what we can do to improve public transport connectivity at a time when the Mayor is clearly not interested in doing so, and when the Lib Dems gave up on my area a long time ago. I very much welcome the Minister. He has been a great friend to Carshalton and Wallington. He has visited before in other Government roles, so I would be delighted to welcome him back to see the transport opportunities in Carshalton and Wallington.
Will the Minister reiterate from the Dispatch Box that the Mayor’s unwanted ULEZ charge on Londoners does not help my constituents? Labour should have backed the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford last week. The ULEZ charge places a burden on people at a time when they can least afford it. We should be looking to increase the public transport connectivity of London, rather than attacking those who cannot change to an alternative.

Nigel Evans: I call the ever-present Minister, Guy Opperman.

Guy Opperman: There is a sense of déjà vu for you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the last debate before the House rose for Christmas featured yourself as the Deputy Speaker; the Transport Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), honourably fighting the fight on  behalf of the Department for Transport; and my good self, making the case at the Dispatch Box on an Adjournment debate. It is a privilege and honour to be the last Minister to speak at the Dispatch Box before Easter.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who said at the outset that we need to wish everybody in the House who works so hard to keep us safe in this place that we cherish, love and adore a very happy Easter and a gentle rest over the Easter holidays, so that we all emerge recharged, rebooted and ready to keep the flavour of democracy alive on an ongoing basis, because that really matters. Having the opportunity to address the House, make the case for democracy and for individual constituents, and bring their concerns, hopes, fears and aspirations to this place is something we should all cherish and adore.
It is a great honour and privilege to respond to my hon. Friend. I have visited his constituency in the past; I would be delighted to visit it again, and I look forward to doing so in the next few weeks. To answer his three points at the outset before I get into the nuts and bolts of the issue, I would be delighted to work with him on the causes he has set out and delighted to visit soon.
I am also delighted to make the case that ULEZ is a blunt instrument, and we will discuss that in a bit more detail, although I assure the House that we will not spend the next two hours and seven minutes discussing it. ULEZ is a blunt instrument that needs to be taken in the context of the individual circumstances of the Londoners and outer Londoners whom it affects. It needs to take into account the impact it has on low-income and public sector workers, because the stats on that are genuinely horrifying. It is not something—with great respect—that is being dealt with sensitivity. It is not being done under the Mayor’s manifesto. I was the Minister who responded to the Bill last Friday on behalf of the Government, and I will touch on that in some detail.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues, which I want to address. The first is the issue of the Mayor and his finances because, as my hon. Friend will be aware and as the Secretary of State has put on the record in writing, the Mayor had to be bailed out by a multibillion-pound settlement due to his mismanagement of his funds. Clearly, that has had an impact on the provision of bus services, which are key. As the Minister for buses, I am passionate about buses and the growth in bus services post covid. I am alarmed and concerned to hear about the litany of bus services that have been lost in my hon. Friend’s constituency due to the actions of the Mayor.
I regret to say that I have no power whatsoever to intervene in the mayoral zone to address any of the bus losses or to nudge individual operators to make changes. I will come to rail in a second, because we have some power there. I know that my hon. Friend has worked with the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), in copious detail to address those issues. That is the reality of the mayoral situation on buses, and it is of great concern.
Only yesterday, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) to have an hour-long discussion with bus operators to thrash out difficulties and try to find a way for the bus service improvement plan and bus service operators grant to address particular issues. That ability does not exist, unless the Mayor provides the right sort of assistance and prioritises the constituents  of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. On buses, regretfully I am powerless to intervene, but his constituents have the ultimate power to do so, and I urge them to do that for the reasons that he set out and that I utterly endorse. I put my backing behind Susan Hall.
I know that my hon. Friend has worked with the Rail Minister over a period of time to try to improve and enhance the rail service that his constituents sometimes have enjoyed and sometimes have not. As someone who commutes in from south London when I am here in Westminster, I have experienced some of that pain. I accept that there are ongoing difficulties, some of which have been addressed—he rightly identified the companies that have assisted him and played ball. We are at about 85% of pre-covid numbers. I assure him that the Rail Minister is happy to meet him, operators and particular cohorts of constituents and councillors to discuss potential improvements and further ongoing work that can be done.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of the Croydon area remodelling scheme. I agree that it is clearly a massive improvement and enhancement that we should get behind. Such an investment will be a massive improvement and be of wider benefit to his constituents. On the other rail and infrastructure projects, he talked about Govia Thameslink Railway—GTR. He has worked closely with that operator on the services that it provides, particularly the busy weekend services between Carshalton and London Victoria, which are vital. He rightly made the point that timetable changes will take effect from June 2024, and services will run with eight to 10 carriages, rather than five as some did previously. I am sure that he will welcome the additional capacity for passengers using those services. We require all train operators to continually review the services they provide so that their timetables reflect changing passenger demand, carefully balancing cost, capacity and performance.
My hon. Friend raised Access for All, which he has championed repeatedly. He would love me to triumphantly pull out the Oscar-winning envelope from this Dispatch Box and confirm the campaign that he has fought for so assiduously for so long. I regret that I cannot do that today, but in time-honoured tradition I can confirm that the next announcement on extending Access for All and improving rail accessibility will be made very shortly. He has made his case repeatedly. If he has not again met the Rail Minister who oversees that issue, I will personally communicate that to him, so that he fully understands how much it matters to my hon. Friend’s constituents and how brilliantly he has made the case.
On ULEZ, there are a number of myths I want to address. We need a genuine discussion on this issue. My hon. Friend spent about five minutes of his speech on it, and I want to spend some time on it in response. The principle of having a clean air zone in the centre of a city is, I think, utterly without dispute. The Government legislated for that, and local authorities and mayors agree with it. For those of us who are right in the heart of the city in Westminster, the original congestion zone makes total sense and is fully understandable. There is an argument —it is a hard argument to make, but there is an argument—that there was authority to extend it out to the south circular and the north circular, and that that would be a wider congestion zone. But it is patently clear from reading the present Mayor of London’s manifesto—I spent  rather too long reading it; an hour and a bit of my life I will never get back—that there is no argument whatever for the extension that has taken place. My hon. Friend rightly talked about the consultation and the responses to it. The best I can do is make two points.
First, take the congestion zone in Bristol, which is clearly relatively successful. It was introduced with due consideration of businesses and people living in the heart of the city, trying to keep a vibrant city going. That congestion zone is one mile by two—basically, two square miles. The London congestion zone has now gone up to approximately 600 square miles. It is 50 miles by 50 miles. The impact on the wider economy of London —park for a moment the air quality, because he rightly addressed that—is obviously massive. Everybody who lives and works in London can see that. It has had a tremendous impact on the businesses that we all want to support.
Secondly, there is a democratic deficit. When the ULEZ is extended so far out to those on the outer limits of London and those who live beyond the London boundary, they are clearly penalised in a very significant way. More particularly, the penalty falls on two groups. I take this from its own impact assessment, as I and others set out in the House on Friday. It falls on the low-income group and on public sector workers—surely the worst groups to be trying to penalise with an extra tax. Anybody who knows anything about the public sector knows it is really hard to get NHS workers, care workers and police officers in central London. I could go on.

Elliot Colburn: The Minister is absolutely right about public sector workers. I mentioned that the Royal Marsden Hospital is having to refund ULEZ charges to cancer patients. One other point we must surely consider is that something like half of all Metropolitan police officers live outside the geographical area of Greater London. No wonder people do not feel that they can come and work in the city if they have to pay £12.50 a day. Does the Minister agree that ULEZ will surely have an adverse effect on crime in London if the majority of our officers have to travel in and pay £12.50 a day to police our streets?

Guy Opperman: My hon. Friend has brilliant eyesight, because he can see the highlighted passage I was about to read out, showing that 50% of police officers in the Metropolitan police area live outside the London boundary and commute in. The percentage for all emergency workers is probably not far off that. There is no doubt that there will be a recruitment issue in all those sectors. I have spent three and a half weeks of my life in St Thomas’ Hospital, requiring intensive care—and on not one but two occasions, because I am so accident prone. Someone may require overnight nursing care, for  example, and a nurse coming into London from outside will be penalised on the day she comes in, and when she leaves her night shift she will be penalised again. She will be landed with a double whammy of a ULEZ charge—and then we are surprised that London hospitals are struggling to retain staff.
Is there evidence that ULEZ is making a dramatic difference to air quality? The evidence that has been set out in a variety of ways suggests that improvement is minimal in some respects, especially in the outer reaches. Is there an impact on the economy? Definitely: there is a negative impact. Is there an impact on public services, public sector workers and the low-income people who, according to the impact assessment, will be more affected by ULEZ expansion? There is not a shadow of a doubt that that is the case. I do not want to get too political on the last day before the Easter recess, but my hon. Friend asked what would happen in the future, and the idea that the present Mayor will not expand the impact of the ULEZ is for the birds. It is a bit like asking, “Are there moustaches in Mexico?” or “Do bears go to the toilet in the woods?” We both know that what the Mayor is proposing to do is to extend the present proposal in a variety of ways.
The key point that was made on Friday by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), my right hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and for Ashford (Damian Green), my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—from a sedentary position—and various colleagues from Watford was that great thought should be given to the benefits of this public policy as against the massive burdens that are being imposed. We must clearly consider why we are doing this on an ongoing basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington remains a massive champion of this issue, and I should be delighted to see the changes that he seeks. Of course, the Rail Minister will continue to work with him, and good work is being done. We want to continue to support him and his constituents. I commend him for bringing the debate to the House before Easter, and I commend his efforts on behalf of his constituents.

Nigel Evans: On behalf of Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, I echo the words of the Minister and Elliot Colburn in wishing a very happy Easter to everyone who works here to ensure that our democracy progresses. I hope that they will get together with their families and friends, and to those who sadly cannot do that because they are providing services to the rest of us, I say a great thank you on behalf of the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.